HF 

1755 

K4 


a 


r'^ 


_y 


Wk, 


\\\  1 

THE  PRINCIPLES 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALlF[<;iNlA,  SAN  DIEGb 
LA  lOlLA.  CLLi^Of^-'^ 

FREE  TRADE, 


A-     --lIilWN     |!\ 


Messrs,  Gladstone,  Wells,  Perry, 
Sumner,  and  others. 


THIS  PAMPHLET  IS  PUBLISHED  ONLY  FOR  THE 
PURPOSE  OF  SHOWING  TO  THOSE 
WHO   DESIRE  TO  KNOW. 


That  our  Present  Tariff  is  a  Swindle 


ri'ox   Tin;  (.kicai-  mass  oi-  ori;  im;oj'I.i:. 


I  AST    I'.OMON  : 
W -M      a.    MOKSi;.    I'KINIICK. 

I  SSfi. 


To  THE  Citizens  of  Boston  : 

In  presenting"  this  paniplilet  to  the  public  I  tlo  so  witli  the 
desire  that  the  mechanic,  hil^orer  and  business  man.  who  has  a 
desire,  can  learn  from  some  of  the  ablest  writers  of  the  dav  the 
principle  of  free  trade.  These  piip^M's  will  all  be  found  t )  be 
al>le  anil  positive  :  no  chance  for  misunderstanding  each.  Of 
those  who  have  kindl\-  contributed  to  this  publication,  some  of 
the  speeches  and  writings  have  been  delivered  some  two  or  three 
vears,  particularlv  so  of  Air.  Gladstone's  ;  and  I  here  commend 
this  address  of  Mr.  Gladstone  to  vour  attention  as  having- 
four-fold  the  bearing  anil  eHect  on  our  covnitrv  to  that  of  his. 
Some  of  the  letters  which  I  publish  have  no  doubt  been  read 
before,  but  have  not  been  freely  distributed  to  our  people. 

In  old  times  the  Democratic  and  Whig  parties  were  so  patri- 
otic, and  each  had  so  much  faith  in  their  principles,  that  they 
furnished  the  means  to  give  to  the  voung  man  the  opportunitv 
of  learning  the  principles  of  political  economy  by  courses  of 
public  lectures.  On  the  Democratic  side  we  had  able  men. 
among  them  no  more  able  than  Robert  Rantoul.  The  leaders 
of  our  old  party  in  those  days  were  not  oHice-seekers.  but  men 
who  were  devoted  to  the  cause  from  principle  alone.  Then  to 
our  ])apcrs  we  looked  for  able  editorials  on  the  tariff';  to-dav 
we  look  for  them,  and  find  in  their  place  bas?-ball.  billiard 
games,  or  notice  of  some  mill,  as  thev  call  it.  belween  two  in- 
human beasts  that  meet  to  mash  each  otlier's  face. 

The  onlv  speeches  \\  hich  we  olitain  from  our  so-called  lead- 
ers are  given  after  diimer.  and  genera!l\-  the  information 
<)t)tained  is  \er\'  foggw  Aud  so  the  wink  of  informing  tiie 
\oung  is  left  to  chance,  and  w  hat  little  i)ia\  be  done  b\  the 
I'ree    Prade  Club  of  ]^)s|on. 


ITS 


And  hciicu  lliis  all-iin{)()ilanl  (jucstion  wiiicti  coiuxTiis  the 
bread  of  every  man,  that  should  demand  the  attention  of  all 
statesmen  and  men  of  thoujjht,  has  not  an  able  advocate  in  the 
ranks  of  the  Democratic  party  in  this  State  who  has  the  manly 
pluck  to  take  a  stand  aj^ainst  the  monopolists  who  ask  the  mil- 
lions to   contribute'    to  their  already  too   much   ill-gotten  j^ains. 

Kidd  took  ship,  cargo,  and  often  life.  We  are  told  this  was 
against  the  law,  but  our  sliips  arrive  to-day  and  by  some  legal- 
ized law,  made  by  Kelly,  Randall,  and  others,  you  rob  them 
of  but  6()  per  cent.,  which,  in  other  words,  is  simply  lawful 
plunder  of  the  few  against  the  many. 

All  I  ask  is,  to  read  with  care  the  evidence  given  you,  and 
then  pqss  the  pamphlet  to  your  neighbor. 

D.  D.  Kelly. 


HOW  DO  MY  LIKE  IT  THEMSELVES? 


uv  i'i;oi'.  A.  1..  im:i:k\- 


The  real  opinion  of  the  leadinc^  protectionists  of  the  United 
States  in  regard  to  the  nature  and  elTect  of  '"protective"  tariff- 
taxes  is  precisely  the  same  as  the  opinion  of  the  free  traders. 
If  one  should  listen  to  the  words  only  of  the-  protectionists,  he 
might  indeed  infer  that  their  opinions  were  diametrically  op- 
posed to  those  of  the  others  in  respect  to  tlie  whole  operation 
of  tariff-taxes  ;  but  it  is  not  wise  nor  safe  to  judge  qf  their 
opinions  by  their  words  alone  on  a  point  like  this  ;  like  all 
other  men,  protectionists  are  to  be  tested  in  practical  matters 
by  their  actions  as  well  as  by  their  words,  and  by  their  ac- 
tions much  more  than  by  their  words;  and  when  they  are 
judged  by  this  common-sense  and  universal  rule,  namely,  that 
actions  speak  louder  than  words,  it  is  found  to  a  demonstiation 
that  they  estimate  the  effect  of  tariff-taxes  in  raising  the  price 
of  domestic  goods  exactly  as  the  free  traders  estimate  it. 

Indeed  a  further  distinction  needs  to  be  drawn  even  in  respect 
to  the  words  used  bv  protectionists,  according  t:*  the  place  and 
time  when  and  where  the  words  are  employed,  according  to 
whether  thev  are  talking  to  their  neighbors  and  emplovees  at 
htnue  or  to  the  members  of  the  Committee  of  \\'a\s  and  Means 
at  Washington.  A  striking  change  of  language  lias  often  been 
observed  in  the  mouth  of  j^rotectionists  accortling  to  a  change 
in  the  audience,  and  according  to  whether  they  wanted  to  get 
something  new  and  better  for  themselves  in  the  way  of  legis- 
lation, or  wiietiier  thev  were  trving  to  account  for  and  jnstifv 
to  outsiders  \\  hat  had  alread\  been  done  at  their  instance.  The 
words  of  j^rotectionists  when  the\'  talk  to  one  anotlier  and 
wlieii  they  talk  or  write  to  llie  \\'a\s  and  Means  Committee, 
are  ten  limes  as  significant  of  their  true  oiiinions,  and  agree 
ten  times  more    nearh    with    l!ie    oiiinions  of  free    traders    than 


wlicii  tlie\  talk  ()!■  write  for  •'  IJiiiKoiiihc."  For  exuiiiplc. 
wliLMi  tlic  Bessemer  steel  men  sent  their  now  famous  circular 
t<j  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  in  1S70,  markinj^  it  as 
"confidential,"  and  askiiiii^  in  it  for  two  cents  a  pound  taritl- 
tax  on  forei^i^n  steel  rails,  thev  admitted  in  it  in  so  manv  words 
that  the\- expected  to  supph'  wliollv  the  domestic  demand  for 
steel  rails.  cnnsecjii^'iitK  the  LCoveriunent  would  not  i^et  a  penny 
from  the  tarill'-tax,  hut  the  domestic  rails  would  he  raised  in 
price  to  consumers  $^4.80  a  ton.  Their  opinion  and  action 
antl  expectation  corresponded  preciseh  with  the  \  iew  of  free 
traders  as  to  the  purpose  and  eHect  ot  "-protective"  tarifl-taxes  ; 
:is  was  in  fact  illustrated  hy  the  tax  of  one  and  one  quarter 
cents  a  pound,  or  $28  a  ton.  si^ranted  to  t'*e  companies  on  steel 
rails  by  the  Committee  and  then  by  Conj^ress  shortly  after. 

The  simple  truth  is.  and  I  am  goinji^  now  to  demonstrate 
it  i)\  un(|uestioiiablc  facts,  that  our  protectionists  like  very 
much  to  have  their  neiji^hbors  and  fellow-countrymen  pav 
'•  protective"  tarill'-taxes,  especially  the  large  classes  of  them 
like  the  farmers  and  the  wage^-takers.  but  they  do  not  like  to 
pay  such  taxes  thc/iisc/ncs,  and  never  ivill  pay  them  if  thev 
can  ei^capc  it  either  t>y  hook  or  by  crook  :  thus  confessing  by 
unniistakalde  action  that  their  real  opinion  about  such  taxes  is 
just  the  sami'  a'^  tliat  of  tlie  free  traders. 

The  first  example  of  this  tiiat  comes  to  mind  is  that  of  Sam- 
uel W'illistoii  and  his  ])artneis  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of 
butti)ns  tor  ina:iy  years  in  the  village  of  Easthampton,  Massa- 
chusetts. The  information  on  this  point  came  directly  to  me 
irom  one  of  the  supeiinlendents  of  the  mill,  and  >ilso  from  one 
of  the  citizens  of  the  village  of  high  character  and  high  posi- 
tion. Indeed  the  facts,  as  I  shall  now  state  them,  have  long 
been  well  known  in  Western  Massachusetts,  and  equalK  will 
known  in  t!ie  Customs  service  of  the  I'nited  States.  'I'hese  gen- 
tlemen were  strong  protectionists  ;  the\  talked  it  to  their  labor- 
ers. the\'  talked  it  to  their  t'ellow-villagers.  and.  w  hat  is  more 
to  tliC  point.  the\  secured  in  ta\()i"  of  their  own  tinishetl  buttons 
a  "protectix  e"  tariH-tax  of  the  hea\  iest  against  toieign  buttons 
of  that  class — a  tax  that  still  subsists.  The  sole  purpose  of 
this  tax    was    to  keep   out   of  tlie  home    market  comjieting  ior- 


eiyn  buttons,  and  to  raise  the  price  of  their  own  buttons  arti- 
ticiallv  and  proportionally  to  the  price  of  the  foreign  with 
the  taxes  added.  They  secured  this  in  precisely  the  same  way 
that  every  "protective"  tarifl-tax  has  been  secured  in  this  coun- 
try from  17S9  to  this  hour,  namely,  by  personal  instance  and 
pressure  brought  to  b^'ar  upon  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means,  and  bv  log-rolling  with  other  interests  that  had  a  sim- 
ilar end  in  ^  iew. 

^"ery  well.  They  obtained  protectionism  for  themselves  and 
liked  it  very  much.  To  be  sure,  all  their  neighbors  and  all  their 
fellow-countrymen  had  to  pay  in  consequence  a  largely  en- 
hanced price  for  their  buttons,  but  that  only  concerned  them  as 
it  increased,  just  as  it  was  designed  to  increase,  their  own 
profits.  But.  unluckily  for  them  as  protectionists,  they  had  to 
buy  foreign  cloth  with  which  to  cover  their  buttons,  that  had 
been  burdened  by  a  heav\-  duty  untler  the  same  impulse  and 
even  in  the  same  bill  as  had  ••protected"  their  own  finished  but- 
tons. This  was  not  so  pleasant,  to  pay  artificially  enhanced 
prices  on  their  material.  But  if  protectionism  was  good  for  the 
country  and  for  the  button-makers,  it  must  ha\  e  l)een  by  tiic 
same  reasoning  good  for  the  country  and  for  the  cloth-makers. 
Sauce  for  the  goose  is  sauce  for  the  gander,  liut  Mr.  VV'illis- 
ton  and  company  immediately  confessed  in  actiori  that  they 
were  not  protectionists,  except  so  far  as  the  scheuie  lirought 
grist  to  their  own  mill  ;  they  at  once  acknowledged  emphatic- 
ally that  the  free  traders  are  right  in  their  view  of  the  action 
of  tarifi-taxes  in  raising  prices;  and  they  gave  orders  that  the 
foreign  cloth  bought  for  their  mill  to  cover  buttons  with, 
should  be  slit  and  cut  so  as  to  come  in  at  the  custom  house 
as  •' damaged  g(Jods,"  and  so  escape  the  "  protective '' tariff- 
taxes  designed  to  raise  the  pv\cc  of  domestic  cloth.  Slitting 
and  cutting  did  nc^t  harm  the  cloth  one  penny  for  their  ])ur- 
poscs,  but  it  enabled  them  to  get  off  scot-free  of  tarifi-taxes. 
JViry  did  )iot  like  to  pay  protective  tariff-taxess  and  escaped 
t/iet?i  by  a  subterfuge. 

Later  thev  practised  an  ingenious  device,  l)y  which  their 
own  manufacture  was  fcirwarded.  anil  their  escape  from  the 
taxes  secured  at  the  same  time.      A    circular  gouge  cutting  out 


hits  ()['  clotli-circlc'S  just  bis^'  c-nou^h  to  co\cr  each  a  button, 
was  struck  down  over  and  over  again  through  the  pieces  of 
cloth  before  shipment,  and  the  perforated  piece  and  the  circles 
cutout  of  it  still  passed  muster  at  the  custom  house  as  "dam- 
aged goods."  This  they  did  in  one  form  or  another  for  years 
and  years;  tlic  government  tVequently  protested  and  struggled, 
])ul  tlie  Initton-makLTs  canied  the  dav  every  time  by  precisely 
the  same  influences  as  they  had  gotten  their  protectionism  at 
first.  Doubtless  they  meant  to  lie  honorable  men  and  good 
citizens,  and  in  fact  they  were  "not  sinners  above  all  the  Gal- 
lileans  because  they  did  such  things"  :  but  their  action  was 
perfectlv  conclusive  as  to  what  they  thought  about  ])rotection- 
ism  in  general,  about  taxes  that  thev  had  /o  pay.  about  the 
scheme  as  a  whole  of  swindling  the  main'  for  the  benefit  of  tlie 
few. 

The  next  instance  that  comes  to  mind  is  that  of  Krastus  B. 
liigelow.  of  Host;)!!,  and  his  confederates  and  subordinates  in 
the  carpet  in(histr\-,  w  hich  was  and  is  a  highlv  '•  protected  " 
industry.  Mr.  Bigelow  was  an  honorable  man  and  a  good 
citi/en.  and  tleserxed  the  highest  credit  for  his  ingenuity  and 
success  as  an  inventor  of  carpet  machiner}-,  on  which  he  had 
valuable  patents.  lie  called  himself  a  protectionist,  and  was 
so  regarded  by  his  neighbors  ;  the  writer  remembers  to  have 
seen  him  cuddled  \ery  close  to  Horace  Greelev  on  the  stage  of 
Music  Hall,  in  lioston.  on  the  occasion  of  a  memorable  taritf- 
debate.  in  which  (jreeley  took  part,  in  October,  iS68;  but  he 
was  not  a  protectionist  certainly  when  it  came  to  tarifl'  taxes 
on  the  raw  material  of  liis  own  industry,  wool  ;  because  his 
sentiments  as  expressed  in  repeate*!  and  em})liatic  action  cor- 
responded preciseh  so  tar  forth  with  the  convictions  and 
actions  ot"  all  intelligent  free  traders. 

On  August  lo.  I.S66.  a  supplemental  tarill-act  went  into 
operation,  enacted  solely  tor  the  sake  of  increasing  ••  protec- 
tive "  tarill-taxes  w  ithout  seeming  to  do  so.  tliat  provided  that 
the  costs  of  tVeigbt,  shipmeiU.  commission,  biokerage.  and  all 
similar  charges,  shoidd  be  adiK-d  to  the  imoice  \alue  of  im- 
ports to  make  up  the  custom  house  \alue  on  vvhicli  the  taxes 
should   be   levied.      This   increase  of  protectionism   applied  to 


s 

;ill  (.lutiable  imports  whatsoever  •' ^^-.v^c/^/  to  lo)tg-conibi)ig-  or 
carpet  ivools  costing  tzvc/ve  cents  or  less  per  pound .''  \Vh\' 
this  single  exception  ?  Why  could  not  the  carpet-manufactur- 
ers pay  tariff-taxes  as  well  as  all  other  people?  No  person  in 
the  United  States  could  buy  a  carpet  without  paving  prices 
enormously  increased  for  their  sole  benefit :  and  vet  thev  were 
unwilling  to  pa\ ,  anil  successfully  resisted  paving,  a  compara- 
tively sliglit  increase  of  taxes  applied  to  all  othei^  (lutiable 
things  without  exception  ! 

It  could  not  bo  tliat  the  carpet  in(lustr\  was  then  depressed. 
and  this  remarkal>le  exemption  happened  on  I'lat  account, 
because,  ten  days  before  this  law  went  into  edect.  the  Hartford 
Carpet  Company  declared  a  semi-annual  dividend  of  tvccnty 
per  centum^  and  its  $ioo  shares  were  worth  $27^  dividend  off". 

Being  a  Yankee  anil  wanting  to  know,  you  know,  I  asked 
Mr.  Dawes  shortly  after,  who  was  then  representative  from 
this  congressional  district,  how  this  extraordinary  exception 
was  bi'ought  about,  and  who  the  man  was  who  liad  accom- 
plished it.  His  reph'  was:  •"  I'on  really  k)ioi.v  just  as  niueli 
abont  that  as  I  know.  All  I  kno~v  is,  that  in  thejirst  and 
second  readings  of  the  bill  that  clause  teas  not  in  it ;  l>e- 
tivecn  the  second  and  third  readings,  the  exception  zvas  in- 
serted, and  the  bill  passed  so.  1  believe  ^fr.  Bigelo~c  li'as 
in   Washington  at  the  time.'' 

This  was  in  1S66.  The  next  \ear  passed  the  famous  \\  ool 
and  Woollens  Tariff",  which  was  a  compromise  and  U)g-roll 
between  the  wool-growers  and  the  woollen-manufacturers, 
largely  medi:.ted  by  Mr.  Bigelow.  The  manufacturers  had 
gotten  in  the  usual  way  high  taxes  on  foreign  cloth,  and  liked 
very  much  the  resulting  high  prices  of  their  domestic  cloth  : 
but  the\'  stood  in  great  fear  lest  the  wool-growers  should 
follow  theit  example  and  go  to  W'ashiugtou  and  get  wool 
••  protected  "  also.  Thev  bought  wool,  while  thev  s<dd 
cloth.  'J'hey  agreed  w  ith  the  free  traders  perfect h.  so  tar 
as  wool  was  concerned,  that  it  is  a  blessed  thing  to  buy 
in  the  cheapest  market.  Tlie\  poor-pussied  the  wool-grow- 
ers, they  cajoled  them.  the\  e\en  menaced  them  when  the 
laltei'  began  to  (kniand    prolectionisni  for  wool.       Thesi'   could 


not  see  why  wool  was  not  as  imicli  entitlcil  to  an  arti- 
ficial price  as  woollens.  Vermont  and  Oliio  spoke  in 
louder  and  louder  tones,  till  at  last  the  wool-growers  of  these 
and  other  States  said  to  the  manufacturers  of  cloth  in  words  of 
downright  business  :  "  lou  accord  to  us  the  same  privileges 
that  you  have  under  the  law  or  you  ivill  lose  your  oivn  !  " 

Then  followed  the  compromise  of  1S67.  The  wool  and 
woollens  tariff  of  that  year  was  a  public  and  conspicuous  con- 
fession of  the  truth,  which  free  traders  have  always  maintained, 
that  the  sole  design  and  the  actual  result  of  protectionism  is  to 
raise  the  price  of  domestic  products  at  the  expense  of  the 
masses,  without  the  least  reference  to  the  wants  of  the  national 
treasury.  The  manufacturers  staved  off  the  growers  till  the 
last  possible  moment,  lil<e  very  free  traders,  and  proclaimed 
therebv  how  admirable  a  thing  it  is  to  buy  in  a  free  market; 
and  when  compelled  to  surrender  their  free  raw  material  to 
burdensome  taxes  for  the  sake  of  the  wool-growers,  they  con- 
fessed the  eB'ectof  such  taxes  (just  as  the  tree  traders  allege  it) 
bv  raising  anew  the  duties  that  *•  protected  "  themselves  by  as 
much  as  they  supposed  the  wool  would  be  raised  by  the 
tariiV-taxes  accorded  now  for  the  first  time  to  the  wool-growers. 
Mr.  Higelow  saw  to  it.  tliat  under  the  new  arrangement  long- 
coiribing  and  carpet  wool  should  still  come  in  from  al)road 
under  a  verv  slight  tariff-tax.  while  all  other  wools  came  in  (if 
at  all)  under  a  very  heavv  tax,  alleging  in  excuse,  that  such 
carpet  wool  was  not  produced  in  the  United  States^  and. 
therefore  did  not  need  "-^  protecting"  and  so  gave  in 
again  his  emphatic  testimonv  in  action  to  the  undoubted  bene- 
fits of  free  trade.  If  such  wool  as  he  used  for  raw  material 
were  not  grown  in  tiie  Ignited  States,  then  every  dollar  of  tax 
ujion  it  would  ha\c  redounded  wholly  to  the  benefit  of  the 
Treasury  of  the  I'nited  States;  l)ut,  like  all  other  protection- 
ists as  such,  he  cared  nothing  for  the  revenue  of  his  country  ; 
since  every  '•  protective  "  tariff-tax  whatsoever  is  designed  to 
prevent  revenue  by  keeping  the  articles  taxed  out  of  the  coun- 
try in  whole  or  in  part. 

My  present   purpose    does    not    allow  mc  to  explain,  which 
could   be  verv  easilv  done,  whv  it  is.  that   the  wool   and   wool- 


lens  tarilT  of  1S67  has  kept  both  the  main  parties  to  it,  the 
growers  and  the  manufacturers,  in  the  slough  of  despond  ever 
since. 

The  third  instance  of  the  remarkalile  fact,  to  wliich  attention 
is  now  called,  turns  on  John  B.  Alley,  of  Lynn,  Mass.  Mv 
informant  at  this  point  also  is  Mr.  Dawes,  whose  own  sense  of 
humor  is  quite  too  keen  not  to  enjo}-  more  or  less  the  ridiculous 
light  into  which  he  himself  and  his  fellow-protectionists  are 
llirown  by  zealous  confession  in  spots,  that  the  free  traders  are 
all  right.  ^^ I  do  not  -wonder^'''  said  Mr.  Dawes,  '•'•thai  me/z  xvho 
thmk  as  you  do  make  a  mockery  oj^  zis  protectionists."  Mr., 
Alley  was  a  protectionist  with  the  rest  in  1S67.  He  thought 
il  was  a  good  plan  for  the  farmers  and  the  laborers  and  all 
(jther  folks  that  us.ed  American  cloth  to  pay  an  extra  price  for 
it  for  the  benefit  of  the  manufacturers.  But  he  did  )iot  ihink 
\l  was  a  good  plan  for  his  neighbors  and  friends  and  constitu- 
ents in  Ljmn,  the  busy  shoemakers,  to  pa}'  an  artihcial  price 
under  protectionism  for  their  Listings  and  webbings,  a  part  of 
the  raw  miterial  of  their  trade.  ,  These  sliDemakers  had  s.'ut 
him  to  Congress  repeatedly,  and  might  do  it  again  ;  and  be- 
sides, he  saw  that.  itw'OulJ  be  a  great  di^scouragement  to  the 
trade  of  the  town  if  these  raw  materials  of  shoes  were  doubled 
il  price  by  the  tariff,  or  ev^en  increased. 75  per  Ci'iititni.  1 1  .■ 
read  an  incidental  description  in  the  tarifl-bill,  which  he  feared 
would  cover  these  listings  and  webbings;  and  he  started  for 
W^ashington  at  onoe,  only  to  m^et  in  New  York  the  adjourned 
New  England  members,  who  had  already  passed  the  bill,  and 
killed  the -shpemakers  undesignedly. 

Poor  Nlr.lALlley !  He  went  back  to  Lynn  a  sadder  and  a 
wiser'  hiah.:  It-  makes  a  great  difference  with  protectionists, 
tloes'it  nbt.-^'  :  Whether  they  themselves  or  their  frien(ls  or  their 
constituents  arc.  compelled  to  pay  the  enhanced  prices  caused 
by  protectionism,  or  whether  the  general  public  are  to  pay 
tliem,  of  whom  they  know  nothing  and  care  less. 

The  last  instance  (if  this  sort  of  thing  is  the  most  striking 
anti  the  mcjst  shameless  of  all.  In  October,  1871 ,  Chicago 
was   burned    down    to    tlie  <rr<)und.      The   whole  countrv.  and 


till'  whole  worUl.  were  slartled    1)\   the  eatehtrophe.      ,\s  W'hit- 
tier  puis  it  in  e\er-li\in<^  lines: 

""A  sii(l(len  impulse  thiilled  eaeh  wire 

That  signalled  round  that  sea  of  tire  ; 

Sweet  words  of  eheer.  warm  heart-throbs  came  : 

In  tears  of  pit\-  died  the  Hame  ! 

I^'oni  East  antl  West,  from  South  and  Xortli, 
The  mcssaji^es  of  hope  sliot  forth  : 
And.  wailei'ueath  the  severing  wave, 
Tlie  Wiirld.  fnll-hani'.ed,  re-;ched  to  save." 


Hut  could  not  Congress  do  somethin;.";  foi^  the  ruined  cit\? 
Thev  met  two  months  afterward,  and  some  one  j)roposed  a 
hill  remitting  ••  protecti\c  "  tariff-taxes  on  l)iulding  materials 
for  one  year  only  and  for  tlie  benefit  of  Chicago  alone.  What 
a  \\  holeside  confession  of  t'ne  real  ellect  of  j^rotectionism  is 
here  I  W  hat  a  free  trade  measure  in  s]Dirit  anil  scope  was  that 
pro])  )sed  I  The  national  bounty  to  the  people  of  a  great  citv 
i,i  ruins  w.is  to  take  tlie  torm  of  all  )\y?ng  them  t.)  get  the  mate- 
ri:ds  for  rebuilding  their  town  for  one  yearoidy  at  their  natural 
])ricc — as  cheap  as  they  could  be  had  in  the  free  markets  of  the 
\\  orld.  That  was  \\  ell.  And  it  \yas  a  great  and  puldic  ac- 
knowleilgement  in  the  face  of  mankind  of  the  true  purpose  and 
the  actual  result  of  protectionism  on  the  prices  of  some  of  the 
necessaries  of  life  to  the  masses  of  tlieir  fell()W-cou!itr\-men. 
For  a  moment  the  majority  of  Congress  entered  iiU\)  the  needs 
and  the  feelings  of  those  who  are  compelLil  in  poverty  and 
mi,sf)!tune  to  pay  arliticialU  higli  ]:)rices  for  die  bare  necessa- 
ries of  bfe  under  protjcdonism.  In  a  spasm  of  \iituous  s\-m- 
])at'.n  widi  the  untbrUmate  Congress  asked  themseh.es.  How 
should  we  like  it  oursjbes  in  like  circumstances.'  This  was 
flee  trade  doctrine.  This  w.is  a  ])ro  id  coufcj-sion  on  the  posi- 
ti\e  side. 

l^ut  listen  no\y.  Ile.ir  a  shrieking  confession  of  the  sanu' 
truth  on  the  negative  side.  The  lumber  lords  of  Michigan  and 
Wisconsin  \yere  astonished  to  hear  that  Congress  proposed  to 
interfere  \\  itii  their  ai  tiliciid  prof  Ls  on  lumber,  extorted  b\    la\y 


out  of  their  fellow-citizens,  even  for  one  }ear,  even  for  the  par- 
tial relief  of  the  unfortunates  of  Chicago  ;  and  a  parlor  car, 
filled  with  some  of  these  greedy  monopolists,  was  rolled  to 
Washington  in  haste  ;  and  lo  I  the  bill  of  relief,  as  passed  bv 
Congress  and  signed  by  the  President,  excepted  himber  from 
the  proposed  remission  of  tarift'-taxes  on  building  materials  for 
one  3'ear  for  the  sole  benefit  of  Chicago  !  Read  the  shameful 
story  in  U.  S.  Statutes  for  1872,  page  33.  This  transaction, 
perhaps  better  than  any  other  in  its  history,  discloses  the 
inmost  nature  and  the  very  animating  spirit  of  protectionism. 
From  one  case  learn  all.  It  cares  nothing  for  thfe  rights  of 
men,  nothing  for  the  needs  of  the  poor,  nothing  for  decency 
even,  nothing  for  righteousness,  and  nothing  for  the  wrath 
of  God. 

Williams  College,  Feb.  i.  1SS6. 


BROAD  PRINCIPLES  UNDERLYING  THE  TARIFF  CONTROVERSY. 


BY   I'MOI'.   W.   C.   SfMNKR.   OF  -SAI.K  COLLEGE. 


y1    Lecture    delivered  before   the  J)itcriiatioiiaI  Pree  Trade 

AlliiDtce. 


The  world  lias  hcaul  a  threat  deal  about  lil)crl\'  for  the  last 
century.  That  period  has  been  marked  b}  ^reat  struggles  on 
the  part  of  nations  to  secure  independence,  and  on  the  part  of 
classes  and  individuals  to  secure  freedom  from  old  traditional 
restraints.  The  we^rld  has  struggled  towards  ''freedom"  and 
••lil)erty"  as  if  these  were  the  first  considerations  of  peace,  jus- 
tice, prosperity  and  happiness,  and  the  result  has  been  to  pro- 
(hicc,  in  tiie  forefront  of  modern  civilization,  states  whose 
fundamental  principle  is  to  give  the  freest  scope  to  individual 
rntTgN   and  cHort. 

We  in  the  United  States  make  it  our  greatest  boast  that  we 
iui\e  accepted  this  broad  principle  absolutely,  and  applied  it 
fearlessh'  ;  ne\ertheless.  we.  who  are  met  here  to-night,  are 
assf)ciated  to  demand  more  liberty.  There  is  no  body  of  our 
tellow-citizens  worth  mentioning  who  deny  the  right  and  the 
expediencv  of  pri\ate  property.  What  we  have  to  demand, 
and  what  the  majority  of  our  fellow  citizens — so  far  as  their 
will  as  \'et  been  constitutionally  expressed — denv  us,  is  the 
]:)ri\iiege  of  using  our  propertv  as  we  like,  that  is,  of  exchang- 
ing it  when  and  where  and  with  whomsoever  we  will.  When 
we  demand  this  pri\  ilege.  which  belongs  to  us  on  the  simplest 
princi[)les  ot  right  reason  and  common  sense,  we  are  met  bv  a 
speculative  theorv  l)ased  on  artificial  assumptions,  put  forward 
sometimes  on  bare  considerations  of  selfish  interest,  and  some- 
times with  no  little  parade  of  abstract  philosophising.  We 
are  told,  "'Oh,  no  I  It  is  not  best  for  the  state  that  vou  should 
lio  as  vou  like  about  making  vour  exchanges.     The   le^fislature 


'-I 

must  consider  the  question,  and  prescribe  for  you  with  whom 
and  for  what  vou  shall  exchange.  If  you  deal  with  the  desig- 
nated persons,  your  countrymen,  they  will  gain,  the  wealth  of 
the  community  will  increase,  and  you.  as  a  member  of  the 
communitv,  will  participate,  and  be  better  olY  in  the  end  than 
if  vou  had  been  let  alone." 

Now,  we  dispute  this  theory  at  every  stage.  We  deny  tliat 
the  state,  i.e..  the  legislature,  can  make  any  such  provision  for 
us  better  than  we  can  inake  for  ourselves,  and  we  appeal  to 
experience  of  cvervtiiing  it  tries  to  do  ;  w^e  deny  that  it  has  any 
business  to  theorize  for  us  in  the  premises;  we  deny  that  the 
designated  persons  will  gain — at  least,  that  they  will  gain  as 
much  as  they  would  if  they  were  left  to  deal  with  us  on  their 
own  footing  :  we  deny  that  they  can  gain  anything  from  us,  ou 
accojdit  of  the  laxv^  but  what  we  lose  ;  we  deny  that  the  total 
gains  to  one  part  of  society  by  this  process  can  ever  exceed  the 
total  losses  by  another  part,  i.e.^  that  the  process  can  increase 
the  wealth  of  the  community  ;  we  deny,  finally,  that  our  s'.iare 
of  these  hypothetical  gains  can  ever  be  redistributed  to  us  so  as 
to  bring  back  our  first  loss.  We  have  never  seen  money  go 
through  such  a  process,  passing  through  man}-  hands,  and 
come  back  whole,  to  say  nothing  of  loss  and  waste. 

Thus  the  issue  is  joined.  On  tile  one  side  are  bn^ad  and 
simple  principles,  so  elementary  that  they  are  mere  tiuisms. 
and  on  the  (^ther  side  are  special  pleas  of  various  kinds  set  up 
to  befog  men's  judgment,  and  prevent  tliem  froui  drawing  the 
inferences  which  follow   inevitably. 

Let  me  suggest  to  \o\\  two  or  tiiree  of  the  broadest  and  most 
commanding  ])riuci')les  which  really  decide  this  cjuestion  : 

I.  We,  Americans,  have  made  it  the  first  prii^ciple  of  our 
sfjcictv  that  n»>  man  shall  obt.un  by  law  any  ad\antage  in  the 
race  of  life  on  account  of  birtii  or  rank,  or  an\  iraditional  or 
fictitious  privilege  of  any  kind  whatsoe\er.  and  on  the  otlier 
jiand,  we  ha\e  removed,  so  far  as  the  law  can  remo\e,  all  the 
hindrances  and  stumbling  blocks  which  come  irom  circum- 
stances of  birth  and  family.  Society  gives  no  aid,  but  it  re- 
mf)ves  all  obstacles  of  social  prejudice  and  tradition.  There  is 
not  a    man    iii    the  ccuiitrx   who   does   not   respond    with   a   lull 


heart  to  the  wisdom  and  truth  ot' this  rehition  of  society  to  the 
iiuhvidiial.  Now,  on  what  principle  is  this  relation  based?  It  is 
on  the  l)elief  tliat  s  )ciety  makes  the  most  of  its  members  in  that 
way.  Some  men  have  more  in  them  than  others.  We  do  not 
Unow  which  is  which  until  they  show  it  ;  but  we  believe  that  the 
wa\'  ti)  let  each  one  cnuie  to  his  l)esL,  is  for  society  to  set  them 
all  o;i  their  feet,  and  then  let  tliem  run  each  for  himself.  We 
l)elieve  that  the  best  powers  of  the  community  are  broujj^ht  out 
in  that  wa\ .  , 

It  does  not  follow  that  men  so  treated  never  make  mistakes, 
a. id  njver  ruin  tliemselves.  We  see  them  do  this  every  day  ; 
but  if  it  wjre  proposed  that  the  state  should  interfere,  few 
w.)uld  be  L'd  astrav  b\'  tlu  pri)positio;i. 

The  same  principle  applies  to  trade  directly  and  completely. 
Tiie  productive  powers  of  men  and  communities  diHer,  but 
wliate\er  they  are.  m!)re  or  less,  they  reach  their  maximum 
inuler  libertv.  I'he  total  of  national  wealth  is  i^reatest  where 
each  disj-joses  of  his  own  enerj^^y  in  production  and  exchanj^e 
witli  tlie  L-ast  interference.  This  is  not  sa\in<^  that  none  will 
m  ike  mistakes,  or  that  free  tratle  will  eliminate  all  ills  from 
human  life.  Free  trade  will  not  make  the  idle  enjoy  the  fruits 
of  industry,  nor  the  thriftless  possess  the  rewards  of  economy. 
I'ovL-rty.  pain,  disease,  misery  will  remain  as  long  as  idleness 
aiul  \  ice  remain.  Free  tratle  will  only  act  in  its  own  measure 
and  way.  to  lea\e  men  facj  to  fice  w.tli  these  thin'i^s.  with  a 
s  )mjwhat  better  chance  to  con([Ujr  tliem.  It  is  oae  of  the 
i^reat  \ices  of  protection  that  it  mal.es  the  industri  )us  sulVer  for 
tlie  idle,  and  the  energetic  and  eaterprisiiv^-  bear  tlu  losses  of 
tile  stupid. 

2.  If,  now,  vou  examine  the  opi:)Osite  t!ieoi"\'  \()u  \\  ill  liiid 
that  it  assumes  that  we  or  our  ancestors  all  made  a  j^reat  mis- 
take in  coming  to  this  country  and  trying  to  live  here.  We 
are  told  that  a  tariH'  is  necessary  to  ""make  a  market"  tor  our 
farmers,  that  a  taritV  is  iiecessar\  to  keep  our  manuficlures 
from  ilestruction. -that  navigation  Li\\>-  are  neces.s.ir\  to  pre- 
serve our  ship[)ing.  Some  of  the  old  countries  hu;)port  a 
population    twe.itv    or   thirlv  limes   as  dense  as  ours  with  littl." 


i6 

or  nothing'  of  this  artificial  system.  If,  then,  we  are  not  able  to 
live  here  without  this  aid,  we  must  have  left  a  part  of  the  world 
where  life  is  easier  for  one  where  it  is  harder.  This  brin^^s 
me,  then, 

3.  To  the  great  fundamental  error  of  the  theory,  viz.  :  That 
taxation  is  a  productive  force.  No  emigrants  go  to  the  desert 
of  Sahara.  None  would  go  to  New  York  if  it  were  sand  and 
rocks.  If,  however.  New  York  is  a  part  of  the  earth's  surface, 
consisting  of  arable  land  fit  to  produce  food  for  man  ;  if  it  is 
intersected,  by  mountains,  covered  by  forests,  and  containing 
iron  and  coal,  and  if  it  possc;sses  great  rivers  and  a  splendid  har- 
bor, then  the  conditions  of  supporting  human  life  are  fulfilled. 
It  requires  only  labor  and  capital  to  build  up  there  a  great  and 
prosperous  community.  It  is  plain  that  some  parts  of  the 
earth's  surface  contain  more  materials  for  man's  use  than  others, 
and  the  fact  as  to  New  York  will  afiect  the  wealth  of  its  in- 
habitants. It  is  plain  that  it  makes  a  difference  whether  the 
people  are  idle  or  industrious,  listless  or  energetic,  sluggish  or 
enterprising.  It  is  plain  that  it  makes  a  difi'erence  how  much 
capital  they  have,  or  whether  there  are  enough  of  them  for  the 
best  distribution  of  labor.  It  is  plain  that  it  makes  a  difterence 
what  is  the  state  of  the  arts  and  sciences,  and  what  are  the 
facilities  for  transportation. 

The  wealth  of  New  York  at  anv  given  time  must  depend  on 
the  way  in  which  these  factors  are  combined.  Now  the 
question  arises:  How  can  taxation  possiblv  increase  the  prod- 
uct?    Which  one  of  the  factors  does  it  act  upon? 

Just  consider  what  taxation  is.  We  pay  taxes,  in  the  first 
place,  to  pay  for  the  necessary  organization  of  society,  in  order 
that  we  may  act  together,  and  not  at  cross  purposes  like  a  mob  ; 
but  if  that  were  all  the  state  had  to  do  taxes  would  be  verv 
small.  We  nmst  support  courts  and  police,  and  army  and 
luivy.  These  we  need  for  peace,  and  justice,  and  security. 
But  suppose  that  there  were  none  who  had  the  will  to  rob,  or 
to  swindle,  or  to  cheat,  or  to  do  violence,  the  expenditures 
under  tliis  heatl  would  dwindle  to  nothing.  It  follows  that 
taxes  are  the  tril)ute  we  pay  to  avarice,  and  violence,  and 
rapine  and   all  the  other  vices  which  disfigure  human   nature. 


'J';i\es  are  only  those  c\ils  translated  into  money  and  spread 
o\er  the  community.  They  are  so  much  taken  from  the  streuj^th 
of  the  laborer,  or  the  fertility  of  the  soil,  or  the  benefit  of  the 
climate.  They  are  loss  and  waste  to  almost  their  entire  extent. 
This  is  the  function  of  ^oyernment  then,  which  it  is  pro- 
})osed  to  use  to  create  yalue,  to  do  what  men  can  do  only  by 
applying  labor  and  capital  to  land.  Let  us  take  a  case  to  test 
it.  Let  us  supj50ge  that  no  woollen  chjth  is  made  in  Xew  York, 
but  that  a  New  Vt)rk  farmer,  at  the  end  of  a  certain  time  has 
ten  bushels  of  wheat,  of  which  one  l)ushel  will  buy  a  yard  of 
imported  cloth.  After  the  exchange  then  he  has  nine  bushels 
of  wheat  and  one  yard  of  cloth.  If  any  one  could  make  cloth 
in  New  York  as  easily  as  he  could  raise  a  bushel  of  wheat, 
some  one  would  do  it  as  soon  as  there  was  unemployed  labor 
and  capital,  and  that  would  be  the  end  of  the  matter;  but  if  no 
one  undertakes  the  business  it  must  be  because  labor  and  capital 
are  all  employed,  or  because  it  takes  more  labor  and  capital  to 
produce  a  yard  of  cloth  than  a  bushel  of  wheat.  Let  us  sup- 
pose that  it  would  take  as  much  as  a  bushel  and  a  half  of  wheat. 
Now.  a  protectionist  proposes  to  the  state  to  tax  imported 
cloth  one-half  bushel  of  vyheat  per  yard.  If  his  plan  is  carried 
out  the  ditliculty  of  obtaining  imported  cloth  is  raised  to  one 
bushel  and  a  half  ot  wheat  per  yard,  which  is  the  rate  of  diffi- 
culty at  which  it  can  be  produced  in  Nevy  York.  The  protec- 
tioni.st  then  begins  and  ofiers  his  cloth  at  a  bushel  and  a  half  per 
\ard.  The  farmer  vyho,  as  before,  has  produced  ten  bushels, 
novy  bu\s  at  the  ne\y  rate,  and  after  the  exchange  stands  pos- 
sesseil  of  eight  and  a  half  luisliels  of  wheat  and  one  yard  of 
cloth.  Whither  has  the  other  half  bushel  gone.-  It  has  gone 
to  make  up  a  fund  to  hire  some  men  to  make  life  in  New  York 
harder  than  (iotl  and  nature  made  it.  I'^oni  time  to  time  we 
are  told  how  much  "our  industries  haye  increased."  So  tar 
as  their  increase  is  in  fact  due  to  this  arrangement,  it  is  only  a 
j)roof  how  nuich  mischief  has  been  done.  This  application  of 
taxation  does  not  alter  the  nature  ot  taxation,  it  t)nly  extends 
its  etlects  arbitrarily  and  needlessly,  and  infiicts  upon  the 
people  a  greater  measure  than  tlie\  need  otherwise  bear  of  the 
burden  which  is  due  to  robiier\  .  iniiistice.  wai".  tamine  and  the 
other  social  ills. 


4.  Protection  is,  moreover,  hostile  to  improvements.  We 
are  always  eager  to  devise  improved  metliods  and  to  invent 
maciiinery  to  "save  labor,"  and  every  such  improvement  which 
■\ve  introduce  involves  the  waste  and  destruction  of  a  great  deal 
of  capital.  Old  machinerv  must  be  discarded,  although  it  is 
not  worn  out.  This  loss  is  not  incurred  by  anybody  willinglv  ; 
it  is  enforced  bv  competition.  When,  therefore,  competition  is 
withdrawn  or  limited  the  incentive  to  improvement  is  lessened 
or  destroved.  This  applies  especially  in  manufactures  where 
the  international  competition  is  cut  oft'  by  protective  duties. 
The  same  principle  that  protection  resists  improvement  applies 
even  more  distinctlv  to  those  improvements  which  are  made  in 
transportation.  In  spite  of  their  theoriesmen  rejoice  in  all  the 
improved  means  of  communication  which  bring  nations  nearer 
together.  A  new  railroad  or  an  improved  steamship  is  re- 
garded as  a  step  gained  in  civilization.  Such  improvements 
are  realized  in  diminished  freights  and  diminished  prices  of  im- 
ported goods.  No  sooner  is  this  realized,  Iiowever,  than 
'"foreign  competition"  is  foimd  to  be  worse  than  ever.  An 
outcry  goes  up  for  ''more  protection."  and  a  new  t;.x  is  put  on 
to-day  to  counteract  what  we  rejoiced  over  vesterdav  as  an  im- 
mense gain.  We  spend  millions  to  dredge  out  our  harbors.  ti> 
remove  rocks  and  cut  channels  through  sandbars,  as  if  it  were 
a  gain  to  ha\e  communication  inward  and  outward  as  free  as 
possible,  and  as  soon  as  we  experience  the  eftects  in  reduced 
cost  of  goods  we  lav  a  new  tax.  like  restoring  the  sandbars,  in 
order  to  undo  our  work.  Indeed,  to  build  sandbars  across  our 
harbors  would  be  a  far  cheaper  means  of  reaching  the  same 
end.  Next,  we  find  that  the  numerous  and  complicated  taxes 
have  made  it  impossible  for  us  to  build  ships  to  sail  across  the 
ocean  where  the}'  must  come  in  competition  with  foreign  ships  ; 
so  we  make  navigation  acts  and  forbid  the  purchase  of  ships, 
exclude  foreigners  from  our  coasting  trade,  and  finallv,  pro- 
pose bounties  and  subsidies,  all  of  w  hich  nuist  come  at  last  out 
of  the  products  of  oui"  labor,  in  order  to  tr\-  to  get  ships  once 
more.  It  is  like  the  man  \\  ho  cut  a  piece  from  his  coat  to 
mend  his  trowscrs,  a  piece  from  his  vest  to  replace  the  liole  in 
liis  coat,  a    piece  from    his  trowsL'rs  to   restore  his  \est,  and   so 


19 

on  o\cr  aij^ain.  Did  lie  e\cr  <:[et  a  whole  suit?  He  found  in  a 
little  while  that  he  had  only  a  nv^  left. 

We  are  told,  howexcr,  tlial  if  we  do  not  do  all  this  we  shall 
he  "inundated"  with  foreign  goods.  The  word  is  appalling, 
and  carries  with  it  a  fallac\-  which  often  seems  to  have  great 
power.  On  what  terms  shall  we  get  this  flood  of  good  things.^ 
Will  they  be  given  to  usr  If  so.  what  can  we  do  better  than 
to  stop  work  and  live  on  t'.iis  generosity.'  Wh\-  are  we,  how- 
ever, selected  as  the  especial  f)bjects  of  tliis  bount\-,  if  bounts' 
it  is?  Whv  do  not  England  and  France  and  Belgium  and 
(jerman\'  pour  out  their  inundations  on  Patagonia  and  Iceland? 
The  answer  is  plain  enough.  The  goods  are  not  gitts.  they 
are  ofl'ered  for  exchange.  Nothing  can  force  us  to  bu\  or  dic- 
tate tjrms  of  exchange  ;  andthe  iiumdation  comes  to  us  because 
we  are  known  to  be  rich  and  able,  an^l  because  we  inhabit  a 
continent  prolific  in  some  of  the  chief  c-bjects  of  human  desire. 
It  is  not  the  beggar  who.  when  he  goes  down  the  street,  is 
■•inundated"  with  wares  tVoni  the  varicjus  stores.  If  it  were  he 
would  probaldv  stem  the  tide  with  joy.  It  is  the  rich  man 
onK  to  whom  good  things  are  freely  otVered  with  a  well  under- 
stood condition  :  few  rich  men  have  ever  been  heard  to  com- 
plain of  it.  If.  then,  the  Americans  have  tiiese  good  tilings 
olfered  them  in  exchange,  and  tlie\'  allow  tliemselves  to  be 
worsted  in  the  bargain,  the\-  sadh'  bi'lie  their  reputation. 

These  tew  observations  which  I  ha\e  now  presented  as 
bearing  on  the  subject  are  verv  broa.l  anJ  comprehensive,  and 
\erv  sweeping  in  their  etiect.  "i  be\  appeal  directh  to  common 
sense  and  right  reason.  TIk'\  gi\e  us  the  correct  point  ot 
\  iew,  and  dispel  some  of  the  fog  which  has  collected  from 
habit  and  prejudice  aiound  lliis  suiijecl.  They  lead  us  right 
up  to  the  doctrine  which  the  Lnitetl  States  have  put  'fn 
practice  in  their  own  interrial  trade — absolute  freedom  of  ex- 
change and  local  or  internal  tax;ition.  We  have  j^roved  the 
practical  value  of  that  svstem  here  o\er  a  continent.  I  cannot 
see  whv  the  same  system  woidd  not  be  a  great  gain  it  extended 
over  Canada.  Mexico  ami  the  West  liulies.  I  cannot  see  why 
it  would  not  be»a  great  gain  if  all  South  America  weie  em- 
braced in  a  confederation   exacth   like   ours  as   tai'  as  this  ])oint 


is  concerned,  with  iibsolute  free  trade  between  the  states.  I 
cannot  see  why  all  Europe  would  not  gain  by  similar  relations, 
as  far  as  trade  is  concerned  ;  and  I  see  no  reason  why  it  should 
not  be  equally  beneficient  if  extended  to  the  whole  civilized 
globe. 

The  objections  come  in  the  shape  of  stubborn  prejudices  and 
old  errors  attaching  to  narrow  and  special  considerations. 
Some  people  dread  the  sweep  of  a  great  general  principle, 
however  clear  and  certain  and  scientific  it  may  be.  They  dis- 
pose of  it  as  a  "theor}-."  Well,  I  am  a  theorist.  I  acc;;pt  tlie 
disabilities  and  dem.md  the  advantages  of  my  position  ;  and 
when  I  find  a  great  principle  founded  in  an  observation  of 
facts  and  exiDcrience,  I  am  not  afrai.i  to  follow  it  up  to  its  last 
corrollary.  The  statesman  must  do  what  hj  can  in  the  face  of 
tradition  and  prejudice  and  vested  interests,  and  I  presume  that 
it  will  be  long  before  the  public  will  be  so  enlightened  as  to  de- 
mand to  feel  ever}-  cent  that  it  pays  in  taxes  for  the  very  sake  of 
knowing  the  amount,  but  I  am  cL-ar  in  regard  to  the  wisdom  of 
such  an  arrangement. 

In  the  further  lectures  which  1  am  to  give  I  jDropose  to  treat 
the  subject  historically  for  I  believe  that  the  tariifhistory  of  the 
United  States  shows  most  clearly  some  of  the  worst  of  the  evils 
of  the  system,  and  I  think  that  every  one  ought  to  know  how 
this  system  has  grown  up  antl  be^a  fastened  upon  us. 


THE  STORY  OF  THE  BESSEMER  STEEL  MONOPOLY, 


\iV    ll()\.     DAVID    A.     \\i:i,I.S. 


This  story,  alth:)uixli  often  toUl,  einhiacj.s,  nevertheless, 
s;)me  facts  that  are  not  generally  known  and  which  cannot 
t.)o  often  l)c  repealed  to  tiie  iVmerican  public. 

In  1^55-  Ilenrv  Bessemer,  an  Eni^lishnian.  discovered  a  new 
process  for  niai<in<j^  sLeel.  As  far  as  the  product  was  con- 
cerned tiiere  was  not  much  of  noxeltv  in  what  Mr.  Bessemer 
accom])lis!ied.  for  just  as  g'ood,  and  e\en  better  steel  was  made, 
and  made  abundantly  before.  But  the  great  merit  of  Besse- 
mcr's  disjovery  was  that  it  made  cheap  an  article  most  essential 
to  the  progress  of  civilization,  wdiich  was  before  dear.  And 
the  whole  world  rejoiced  in  the  result,  as  one  of  the  great 
achie\  ementsoftlic  nineteenth  century.  We  say  the  vvhole  world, 
but  we  are  mistaken  :  the  United  States  apparently  did  not  re- 
joice, tor  a  p:)ition  of  its  people,  after  waiting  until  the  new 
disco\ery  had  been  proved  a  success,  and  so  avoiding  partici- 
pation in  the  loss  and  expense  that  is  alwavs  incident  to  an  ex- 
])L-riment  in  manuf ictures.  went  to  work  to  neutralize  the 
benetit  of  Mr.  Bessemer's  discoverv,  by  depriving  it  of  its 
special  merit — namely,  cheapness.  And  thev  succeeded  in  a 
great  degree  in  so  doing.  b\-  inducing  Congress  to  impose  a 
duty  of  nearly  loo  per  cent,  on  the  import  ofall  Bessemer  steel 
imported  from  Europe,  and  then  augmenting  the  price  of  all 
steel  that  was  made  in  this  countr\  to  an  ecpial  or  nearly  eipial 
extent.  It  is  also  to  be  noted  as  a  further  part  of  this  histor}', 
that  the  persons  who  sought  and  obtained  from  Congress  the 
power  to  tax  to  such  an  enormous  extent  the  people  and  in- 
terests ot  the  country  who  desired  to  use  the  new  steel — the 
railroads  more  especially  in  the  lirst  instance,  and  then  all  who 
used  the   railroads   tor   freight    and    lra\el — had    pre\iouslv   ac- 


quired  by  purchase  at  a  very  low  price  the  exclusive  control  of 
the  patent  granted  to  Mr.  Bessemer  in  the  United  States  ;  and 
that  they  then,  after  being  thus  doubly  fortified  against  all  pos- 
sible competition  at  home  or  from  abroad,  formed  a  company 
or  ring,  of  some  eleven  associates,  and  refused  to  allow  anv 
other  persons  to  engage  in  the  manufacture  of  the  new  steel, 
except  on  condition  of  paying  to  the  American  owners  of  the 
patents  a  rovaltv  so  large  as  to  be  practically  destructive  of  all 
profit  to  all  outside  parties. 

So  the  business  outside  of  the  operations  of  the  eleven  asso- 
ciates has  not  until  very  lately  been  in  any  degree  extended. 
But  now  that  some  of  the  original  patents  Ik.xc  expired,  a  few 
other  parties  are  beginning  to  engage  in  the  business.  The 
American  people,  however,  by  reason  of  the  tariff,  are  pa\  ing 
all  the  same  as  before  for  their  Bessemer  steel,  or  about  double 
the  price  paid  by  the  people  of  other  countries,  tlieir  compeers 
in  wealth  and  civilization. 

And  how  much  does  the  tax  at  present  amount  to  annualh? 
Let  us  see.  The  domestic  production  of  steel  rails  for  the  \ear 
iSSo  w;;s  9^4,460  net  tons;  the  importations  were  i:;.S.2:^(> 
tons,  indicating  a  domestic  consumption,  for  the  \ear  of  i.ii^.- 
690  tons!  The  average  prices  of  the  American  product  for  the 
vear  1S80  was  $67.50.  The  average  prices  of  Bessemei  rails 
in  Great  Britain  for  tiie  same  period  were  between  £6  and  £7, 
or  from  $30  to  $;,5.  It  is,  therefore,  clear  that  tlie  full  pound 
of  Hesh — $28  per  ton  —  which  the  tanif  allows,  was  taken  on 
all  the  Bessemer  rails  bought  and  used  in  the  United  States 
during  the  vear  1880.  and  that  this  increment  of  price  in  con- 
sequence— which  was  a  tax  on  domestic  consumption — 
amounted  in  the  aggregate  to  $31,155,320.  TI}irty-o}!c  Tril- 
lions of  dollars  II  '.  Truly  a  big  sum  1  A  sum  so  large  that 
the  mind  is  iuial)le  to  take  its  measure  except  1)\-  instituting 
comparisons,  or  finding  out  how  much  the  same  nimiber  of 
dollars  will  bu\'  of  some  other  commodities.  Let  us,  therefore, 
as  a  help  to  mental  comprehension,  institute  some  of  these 
tests  or  comparisons.  Thus  if  a  man  were  to  attempt  to  count 
this  sum  at  the  rate  of  a  dollar  a  second,  it  would  take  him 
more  than  a    \ear.    working  twentv-four   hours  a  da\  .  or  more 


than  two  years  ai  twclvL-  hours  a  day  to  do  it.  It  represents 
more  than  three  times  the  net  ordinary  expenditures  of  the  en- 
tire federal  j^overnment  in  the  \ear  iSSo,  and  more  than  half 
the  orihnar\'  expenchlures  of  the  j^oNerninent  durinj;-  the  last 
year  of  Buchanan's  administration.  The  fishery  business  of 
the  s^reat  lakes  is  an  extensive  and  laborious  branch  ofdomestic 
iiidustr\ ,  <4"i\  in<^  emplo\inent  in  iSSo  to  v^^o  men,  and  sup- 
plying the  country  with  a  most  desirable  and  cheap  article  of 
food.  And  yet,  taking  the  value  of  the  catch  for  iSSo 
($17,84.0^0)  as  the  basis  for  estimate,  these  5.050  poor  and 
industrious  n\cu  would  be  required  to  work  and  give  the  entire 
product  of  their  work  for  more  than  seventeen  years  in  order 
to  raise  money  enough  to  pay  the  tax  which  the  tariff  at  pres- 
ent imposes  annually  on  the  entire  people  and  industries  of  the 
country  for  the  benefit  of  comparative!}'  very  few  people,  and 
for  one  single  branch  of  ilomestic  industry.  And  out  of  this 
great  tax  of  $31,155,320,  only  $4,479,236  passed  into  the  na- 
tional treasury.  Again,  if  we  assume  the  average  product  of 
wheat  in  the  lhiit..'d  States  at  fifteen  bushels  per  acre,  and  that 
the  farmer  receives  on  the  average  one  dollar  per  bushel  gross 
for  his  product — both  not  unfair  assumptions — and  further  that 
the  l)ount\  to  the  steel  rail  manufacturers,  ,  which  accrued 
directly  to  their  profit  in  18S0,  by  reason  of  the  tarifi',  had  been 
paid  to  them  in  wheat  in  place  of  money  ;  or,  .to  put  the  case 
still  difl'eienth  ,  if  we  suppose  the  American  steel  rail  makers 
to  have  sold  their  products  in  1880  at  the  same  price  as  their 
European  competitors  were  glad  to  sell — from  $30  to  $35  per 
ton — and  then  that  the  federal  goxernment,  w  itli  a  view  of  re- 
warding their  struggiing  patriotic  efibrts,  had  sent  out  its  re- 
\  enue  officials,  who  arbitrarily  took  from  the  farmers  and  de- 
livered to  the  steel  rail  makers  twent\-eigiit  bushels  of  wheat 
for  e\erv  ton  whicii  tluy  manufactured  and  s^)ld  ;  it  woultl  ha\  e 
retjuired  Jo.yj^.Soo  bu.-^nels.  (more  than  was  grown  in  1880  in 
the  entiiv  .Slate  of  Wisconsin,  Missoini  oi  Kan>as)  or  the  pro- 
duct of  i  .781  .6^8  acres  to  have  given  them  an  e(]iii\aient  in 
\alue  to  the  l)()unty  whicii  the\  actualb  received  in  mone\ 
during  the  same  \ear,  under  the  existing  tariff. 

Now  it  is  not    jjretended    that  these    steel   rail  taxes  are  paid 
pi  imariix  of  e\clu>iyel\    from  the  ])ro(iucts  of  tin-  fisheries,    (ir 


^-1 

from  the  crops  of  the  fanners — althoug'.i  the  burden  does  rest 
in  a  great  degree  upon  the  latter,  who  furnish  the  l>ulk  of  tlie 
commodities  transported  by  rail ;  but  as  all  taxes,  of  whatever 
name  and  nature,  must  be  paid  out  of  the  products  of  labor, 
and  can  be  paid  from  no  other  fund,  then  somebody,  in  order 
to  pay  the  enhanced  cost  of  the  domestic  consumption  of  steel 
rails,  over  and  above  what  passed  into  the  federal  treasury, 
must  have  performed  a  service  equal  to  growing  26,724,880 
bushels  of  wheat  or  of  cultivating  1,781 ,658  acres  of  land.  And 
for  this  enormous  amount  of  labor  the  toilers  were  in  no  way 
benefitted,  for  they  might  have  sold  all  the  products  of  their 
labor  for  the  same  price  as  they  did  receive,  and  have  had  an 
exemption  in  addition  from  the  tax,  to  represent  profits  or  sur- 
plus in  their  pockets. 

We  have  here,  therefore,  a'n  illustration  in  the  nature  of  a 
demonstration  of  the  manner  in  which  protection  interferes 
with  the  natural  distribution  of  wealth  ;  enriching  the  few  at 
the  cost  of  the  many. 

But  this  record  of  the  greed  and  rapacity  of  the  steel  rail 
manufacturers  of  the  United  States  is  not  yet  complete.  Not 
content  with  the  exclusive  ownership  of  the  patent  right  to 
manufacture  ;  not  satisfied  ^vith  the  exactment  of  an  exorbi- 
tant tarilFon  the  import  of  all  competing  products,  the\  sought 
and  obtained  from  Congress,  in  conjunction  with  the  iron 
manufacturers,  the  right  to  forcibly  compel  the  purchase  of 
these  commodities  i>y  certain  greiit  domestic  consmiiers.  Thus 
they  would  not  cons:.>nt  to  the  granting  of  charters  liy  the 
government  to  the  sc\eral  Pacific  railroads,  even  when  the  con- 
struction of  these  roads  was  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  doubtful 
and  dangerous  financial  experiment,  excej^t  the  builders  were 
saddled  with  the  restriction  that  in  all  their  purchases  of  iron 
and  steel  they  should  be  obliged  to  take,  irrespecti\e  of  kind 
or  quality,  such  products  as  the  American  iron  and  steel  niaiui- 
facturers  might  otter  to  sell,  aiul  none  other.  Now  it  might 
naturally  have  been  supposed,  in  conformity  with  the  old  pro^  - 
erb,  '"What  is  sauce  for  the  goose  is  sauce  for  the  gander," 
that  the  American  iron  and  steel  manufactories,  ha\  ing  pro- 
hiiiited  (he  transcontinental  railroad  companies  from  using  any 


thin<i^  but  American  iron  and  steel  for  their  constructions, 
would  liave  themselves  rigidly  refrained  from  using  anything 
in  turn  in  their  iron  and  steel  works,  except  the  j)roducts  of 
American  labor.  But  if  any  one  had  indulged  in  sucli  an  h\- 
pothesis  he  would  have  been  sadly  disappcjinted.  I'or  these 
special  iron  ami  steel  frientls  of  American  industry  no  sooner 
found  out  that  in  the  absence  of  a  hundred  per  cent,  dutv  on 
foreign  pig  iron,  scrap-iron  and  iron-ore,  they  could  supply 
themselves  with  these  raw  materials  cheaper  in  the  foreign  than 
in  the  domestic  market,  than  they  delilierately  turned  their 
backs  on  their  fellow-American  iron  miners  and  pig-metal 
smelters,  and  proceeded  to  take  advantage  of  the  pauper  lalior 
of  Europe  by  purchasing  and  importing  large  quantities  of  iron 
ore  from  Spain,  and  old  rails  and  scrap  iron  from  England  and 
other  countries,  the  importation  of  foreign  ore  for  iSSo  having 
amounted  to  493.408  tons;  and  old  rail  and  scrap  to  ths  \alue 
of  $14.70^.879.  Whereat  much  harsh  language  and  not  a  few 
threats  of  smashing  the  protecli\e  machine  have  been  indulged 
in  on  the  part  of  American  workingmen,  who  have  alwavs 
been  toKl  b\'  the  [protectionists  of  the  Pennsylvania  school  that 
good  Americans  must  only  buy  and  manufacture  American 
])roilucts,  and  never  omit  to  frown  down  severelv  the  products 
of  die  pauper  labor  of  Europe.  Another  result  of  this  absurd 
legislatit)n  has  licen  toputat  least  one  of  the  Pacific  railroads  in  a 
\  er\  awkward  position.  This  isthe  act  ofCongress  incorporating 
ihe  Texas  tV:  Pacihc  railroad,  passed  March  3,  1871.  It  was  pro- 
vided (Section  16,)  atthe  instance  of  Pennsylvania  iron  and  steel 
manufacturers,  "that  said  road  should  be  constructed  of  iron  or 
steel  rails  manufactured  exclusivelv  from  American  ores,  ex- 
cept such  as  ma\'  heretofore  liax  e  been  contracted  for  by  any 
railroad  compan\'  \\  hich  niav  be  purchased  or  consoliilated 
\\  ith  1)\  lieing  c|ualitied  and  incorporated  as  prt)vided  in  this 
act.'"  and  a  supplcmeiitar\  act,  approxeii  Marcli  2.  1872.  re- 
])eats  almost  the  same  language.  Now  as  none  of  the  Bessemer 
steel  rail  mills  in  Penns\l\ania  use  American  ores  and  iron  ex- 
clusively antl  soleh  ,  but  all  import  large  i]uantities  of  foreign 
ores  from  Spain,  Ell)a,  ami  otlier  toreign  mines  ;  and  as  jjrob- 
abl\-  no    compaiu'    in     the    wliole    countr\     i^    nblr    to  dispense 


with  the  use  of  so-called  "speigel  eissn,"  (a  foreign  manganese 
iron)  ;  it  follows  that  if  the  strict  letter  and  intent  of  the  law 
was  carried  out,  the  Texas  &  Pacific  railroad  would  be  actually 
debarred  from  purchasing  a  single  steel  rail,  under  any  existing 
circumstances  in  any  market. 

Let  us  still  turn  another  leaf  in  this  curious  history  of  the 
American  Bessemer  Steel  Monopoly.  Heretofore  it  has  been 
found  impracticabie  to  make  Bessemer  steel  of  iron  produced 
from  ores  containing  sulphur  or  phosphorus  in  appreciable 
quantities,  and  as  most  English  and  Americaan  ores  of  iron 
contain  these  substances,  the  supply  of  proper  iron  has  been  a 
somewhat  expensive  and  troublesome  matter  to  both  English 
and  American  Bessemer  steel  makers.  Within  a  very  recent 
period,  however,  a  method  known  as  the  -'Gilchrest-Thomas 
process,"  has  been  discovered  in  England,  whereby  at  small 
expefise  an}'  ore  of  iron  can  be  used  for  the  manufacture  of 
Bessemer  steel ;  and  the  patent  right  to  its  exclusive  use  in 
the  United  States  has  been  also  purchased  b}'  the  American 
Bessemer  Steel  Association.  According  to  the  last  report  of 
the  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association  (July,  iSSi),  this 
new  process  "has  been  successfully  adopted  in  nearly  all  the 
steel  making  countries  of  Europe,"  and  "that  England  thus 
adds  another  to  the  list  of  her  important  inventions  eiTecting 
the  manufacture  of  iron  and  steel."  But  the  United  States 
alone  of  all  the  steel  making  countries  in  the  world,  has  not 
yet  adopted  this  great  improvement;  and  apparently  will  not 
for  the  present.  For  it  is  well  understood  that  the  •■eleven  as- 
sociates" who  own  the  patents  for  the  "Thomas-Gilchrest  pro- 
cess" in  the  United  States,  do  not  find  it  for  their  interest,  with 
the  present  ratio  of  profits  on  the  manufacture  of  Bessemer 
steel,  to  adopt  anv  innovations;  and  that  they  further  do 
not  i^ropose  to  issue  licenses  to  anybody  else  to  use  it,  for  any 
royalty  which  it  would  be  possible  to  pay.  And  thus  in  tlie 
name  of  protection  to  American  industry,  the  march  of  im- 
])ro\ement  and  the  cheapening  of  a  great  necessity  of  civiliza- 
ti(jn  are  arrested. 

We  reati  in  history  of  examples  of  European  monarclis  grant- 
ing to  court    favorites    and    kept    mistresses   exclusive   right  to 


(]ca\  in  salt,  '^'AA  hicc,  ^Inss,  leather,  and  other  CDnmiodities, 
with  a  view  of  enrichinij  the  recipients  and  owners  of  these 
privileges  by  taxing  the  consnniption  of  the  people.  And  in 
all  these  cases  the  lax  was  purposelv  made  indirect  so  tliat  the 
amount  of  the  robbery  should  not  l)e  readily  comprehended 
and  appreciated  by  the  suflerers.  Most  people  suppose  that 
the  day  for  all  this  sort  of  imposition  has  long  gone  by  ;  ]:)ut  it 
would  be  tlifHcult  to  find  in  all  history  a  single  instance  of  so 
moiistious  abuse  of  the  rights  of  the  people  to  buy,  sell  and  use 
iVeely.  as  is  embodied  and  j^racticed  under  the  claim  of 
benefiting  domestic  industi\'.  b\  the  American  Bessemer  vSteel 
Monopoh  . 

In  the  Arabian  Xights  it  was  necessary  to  tell  a  thousand  and 
one  stories  before  the  Sultan  of  the  Indies  could  be  persuaded 
of  the  impropriety  of  cutting  oil"  a  wife's  head  e\er\-  morning 
before  breakfast.  The  American  people  have  been  so  long 
imposed  upon  in  respect  tf)  the  workings  of  the  existing  tarifl* 
and  so  assiduouslv  taught  to  l)elieve  that  a  continu;<tion  of  these 
impositions  is  essential  to  the  continuance  of  national  pros- 
perity, that  possiblv  they  will  require  a  thousand  and  one  fur- 
ther ilhistrations  of  the  ini()uity  of  the  I-*emis\  banian  system  of 
])rotection,  before  they  be  convinced  of  its  impolicy  and 
wicketlness  and  reform  it  out  of  existence.  But,  be  this  as  it 
may.  one  would  think  that  suflicient  evidence  has  been  sub- 
mitted to  satisfy  the  public  that  some  important  measures  of 
tariff  reform  ought  to  be  immediateU'  instituted,  and  that  it  is 
not  necessarv  to  have  a  tariff  commission  t)  rind  out  bow  and 
w  here  to  l>e<iiii- 


\ Extract  from  •' BrnJstrfi-t's,''  Jan.  I6tli,  iSSo.] 

SUGAR  AND  THE  TARIFF. 


Probably  no  other  article  upon  our  extensive  list  of  dutiable 
staples  presents  such  anomalies  as  that  of  sugar.  With  the  ex- 
ception of,  say,  ten  or  fifteen  years,  when  the  country  had  to 
raise  its  revenue  through  every  practicable  source,  the  tariff' 
upon  sugar  has  been  entirely  a  protective  one.  It  has  been 
framed,  particularly  during  the  past  twenty  years,  with  special 
care  and  with  a  view  to  develope  the  production  of  domestic 
sugar.  It  also  happens  that  a  small  portion  of  the  country 
under  fiivorable  influences  is  suited  to  the  production  of  cane 
sugar.  Considering  that  the  object  of  the  present  tariff  is 
purely  the  developement  of  American  industry,  it  is  only 
natural  to  expect  that  an  article  which  is  protected  to  the  ex- 
tent of  about  6o  per  cent,  should  show  a  marvelous  growth, 
particularly  so  when  that  article  is  one  of  the  most  popular 
kind,  and  to  a  large  extent  necessary  to  the  full  enjoyment  of 
life,  for  sugar  can  no  longer  be  ranked  as  a  luxury.  If,  how- 
ever, the  production  of  domestic  sugar  is  statistically  con- 
sidered, it  will  be  found  that  the  production  has  not  increased 
under  a  most  patronizing  tariff',  but  absolutely  decreased. 


1823 
1824 
1825 
1S26 
1827 
182S 
1829 
1830 
i8u 
1832 

i«33 
1834 
1S35 
1836 

1837 
■838 


Ilhd._ 
30,000 
32,000 
36,000 
45 '.000 
7 1 .000 
83, 000 
48.000 
no  data 
iio  data 
70,000 
75,000 
100,000 
30,000 
70,000 

65,  OCX) 
70,(K)0 


Ilhd 

Hhd. 

1S70 

11  hd. 

IS39 

1 15.000 

1855 

^'3 1 -427 ~ 

144.881 

184) 

87.000 

iSs6 

73-296 

1871 

IJ8.461 

1841 

yo.ooo 

•857 

279.6^7 

1872 

108.520 

1842 

140,000 

1858 

362,269 

1S73 

89  498 

1S43 

10  ),ooo 

18^9 

221.840 

1S74 

1 16.867 

1844 

200. ODO 

1 86  J 

22S.753 

1875 

'44  146 

IS45 

186,000 

1861 

459-419 

1876 

J6;>.33' 

IS46 

140,000 

i86i 

no  data 

1877 

i27-7.>3 

1847 

240,000 

186^ 

76,800 

1878 

213.221 

1S48 

226,000 

1S64 

10.387 

1879 

169.972 

1849 

^47'9^3 

186s 

18  070 

1880 

2.8314 

1 850 

211,201 

186^^. 

^l.OilO 

iSSi 

122,982 

i8si 

237  •.S47 

1867 

7,1  Ml 

1882 

241,220 

1852 

3^1-934 

1868 

84.256 

I8S3 

221.515 

1S53 

449-324 

1869 

87,090 

I8S4 

170-43' 

1S54 

346,635 

-9 


riic  al)()\c  t.ihlc  gives  the  production  of  cane  sugar  as  far 
back  as  reliable  data  can  be  obtained.  The  figures  given  arc 
hogsheads. 

The  table  presents  quite  a  study  to  all  revenue  rcforni- 
ers.  With  one  single  e.\cepti(Mi  1S53  was  the  most  pro- 
ductive year  in  the  list,  and  at  that  time,  strange  to  say,  the 
duty  averaged  only  .95c.  per  pound,  against  1.95c.  for  18S4. 
If,  h(nvever,  we  take  1867,  when  the  duty  upon  all  im- 
])orted  sugar  averaged  3.04c.,  which  is  within  .02  of  the  bond 
price  for  the  past  year,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  production  onlv 
amounted  to  37,647  hogsheads.  Granted  that  the  war  wrought 
considerable  havoc  in  the  sugar  producing  regions,  but  it  was 
o\er  and  there  was  a  time  for  a  revival.  'Jhe  same  rate  of 
duty  continued  until  1S70  but  with  little  better  results,  the 
crop  onlv  amounting  to  144,881  hogsheads.  If,  however,  a 
I'urthcr  comparison  is  made  of  1881,  which  is  ele\cn  years 
later,  aiul  vviien  the  duty  averaged  2.46c.  per  pound,  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  production  instead  of  increasing  at  an  enormous 
rate,  as  might  be  expected,  it  absolutelv  declined  to  122.9S2 
liogsheads,  or  a  deciease  of  over  15  per  cent,  in  eleven  years, 
'iliis  decrease  was  during  the  time  when  the  lowest  tarifV 
averaged  for  the  year  over  2C.  per  pound.  Finther.  if  the  crop 
of  1884  be  Compared  with  that  of  1S53  the  comparison  will  be 
still  against  a  continuance  of  an  excessi\e  tariti  for  the  de\elop- 
menl  (jf  an  industry  that  resists  60  per  cent,  protection.  In  1853 
the  production,  as  stated  before,  amounted  to  449.324  hogs- 
heads, while  last  year's  prcKluction  reached  but  170.431  hogs- 
heads or  .277,893  hogsheads  Ln.s.  We  theiei'ore  produced  over 
160  per  cent,  more  sugar  in  18^3  with  a  tariti' of  .95c.  per 
pound  than  we  did  with  a  tariff  of  1.95c.  in  1S84.  The 
(htlerence  in  the  price  of  sugar  is  only  slightly  against  18S4, 
the  average  price  ot  fair  refining  being,  for  the  latter  year 
3.31C.  against  3.49c.  in  1853,  a  difference  of  only  iSc.  If, 
however,  1869  is  taken,  the  comparison,  so  far  as  price  is  con- 
cerned, becomes  much  more  favorable  to  the  domestic  prod- 
uct. The  production  in  that  year  was  about  87,090  hogsheads, 
which  is  a  reduction  of  362,234  hogsheads,  while  the  average 
jjrice  in  bond  was  5.56c.  against  3.49c.  respectively,  or  2.07c.  in 


favor  of  1S69.  In  the  light  of  statistics,  viewed  from  the  point 
of  production  alone,  our  domestic  sugar  production  is  un- 
questionably a  complete  failure,  the  figures  given  above 
proving  beyond  dispute  that  the  industry  flourished  better 
under  a  low  than  a  high  tariff.  It  may  be  argued  by  the 
friends  of  the  sugar  producer  that  the  conditions  of  labor  have 
changed,  and  owing  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  it  is  more  diffi- 
cult to  compete  with  the  imported  article,  even  if  the  dutv  is 
60  per  cent.  It  must  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that  slavery 
has  been  abolished  in  nearly  every  other  sugar  producing 
country,  and  that  in  many  of  them  labor  is  quite  as  high  as  it 
is  in  the  Southern  States. 

It  is  urged  that  the  cost  of  production,  caused  bv  the  difler- 
ence  in  the  price  of  labor,  prevents  our  Southern  planters  from 
competing  with  foreign-grown  sugar.  This,  however,  is  only 
partially  true,  for  in  many  countries  sugar  is  grown  with  labor 
equally  as  dear  as  that  in  any  cane-sugar  producing  State.  It 
is  safe  to  sriy  that  in  most  countries  where  labor  is  free  the  cost 
is  equal  to  labor  in   the  South. 

It  is  not  the  labor  cost  that  is  the  greatest  item  in  sugar  pro- 
duction, although  it  is  an  important  one,  and  in  order  that  a 
fair  comparison  may  be  made  upon  this  point,  the  following 
table,  which  is  authentic,  will  show  that  in  the  Hawaiian 
Islands  the  skilled  labor  is  higher  than  in  Louisiana.  The  un- 
skilled laborer  is  allowed  to  work  but  ten  hcnns  a  day  in  the 
mill,  and  twelve  in  the  field  : 

OCCUPATION. 

Firemen, 

Water  tender, 

Putting  cane  in  carrier, 

Feeding  mill, 

J^acking  megass, 

Taking  megass  to  house, 

Taking  megass  from  house  to  boilers, 

At  juice  pump  strainer, 

Assisting  engineer, 

At  clarifiers, 

At  cleaners, 

^Xmouut  carried  forward  $32  ^o 


NO. 

COST 

EMPLOYED. 

PER  DAY 

3 

men 

$.^ 

00 

I 

man 

I 

00 

]0 

men 

10 

00 

z 

men 

2 

00 

1 

man 

I 

oc; 

men 

3 

00 

7 

men 

7 

00 

1 

boy 

5" 

I 

man 

T 

00 

0 

men 

2 

00 

2 

men 

- 

00 

3^ 

Amount  brought  forwartl,  $32  50 

At  double  eHcct,  i  man  i  50 

At  filter  press,                                               2  men.  i  boy  2  50 

At  centritiigals,  2  men  2  00 

At, coolers,  2  men  2  00 

Packing  sugar,  2  men  2  00 

Sewing  bags,  i  woman  ^o 

Sugar  clerk,  i  man  2  00 

Watchman,  i  man  i  cx) 


Tcilal,  $46  00 


Average  cla\ 's  work  21.000  gallons   juice,  equal   to 
18  tons  sugar;   cost  per  ton  for  unkillecl  labor: 

Skilled  labor  per  \ear.  or  crop  : 

Engineer.  $[,800 

Sugar  lioiier.  i  -Soo 


-  :>.> 


Total.  $3,300 

l''or  a  cro])  otsav  3.000  tons    (2,000  pounds  each), 
per  ton, 


Total  cost  of  labor.  ])er  ton,  $3  65 

The  advantage  with  the  sugar  planter  on  the  Hawaiian 
Islands  is  the  superioritv  of  machinery,  this  machinery  being 
more  easily  obtained  because  it  is  imported  free  of  duty.  In 
th.is  respect  our  Southern   planter  is  placed  at  a  disadvantage. 

The  labor  problem  is  not  the  ditllcultv  with  the  Southern 
jilanter.  It  is  lack  of  capital,  and  the  inadaptability  of  the  cli- 
mate which  are  the  greatest  drawbacks  to  the  profitable  pro- 
duction of  sugar  in  this  countr\'.  If  these  are  facts,  and  they 
are  admitted  b\-  ail  who  ha\  e  an\  intimate  knowledge  of 
planting,  theii  why  support  an  industry  by  exorliitant  duties 
which  can  ne\er  supply  more  than  an  average  of  12  per  cent. 
t)f  the  consumptive  demand .''  Tiiose  planters  who  have  plenty 
of  capital,  and  there  are  a  few  who  ha\e,  with  modern  ma- 
chinery, could  produce  sugar  at  a  profit  at  present  prices,  with 
a  duty  ot  not  more  than  25  per  cent.  But  to  keep  up  a  tarifi' 
of  60  j)er  cent,  in  V)r(ler  to  keep  alive  those  who  labor  under 
insurmountable  difiiculties,  is  neither  just  to  the  consumers  of 
sugar,  nor  is  it  a  wise  or  statesmanlike  policy  to  pursue. 

If.  howc\er.  the  presevit  tarill'on  sugar  is  examined  broadh'. 


its  exorbitance  becomes  much  more  distinct.  The  follovvino^ 
table  gives  the  amount  of  sugar  imported  in  the  fiscal  3ear 
ending  June  30,  1SS4,  which  is  a  representative  vear. 

Foreign  sugar  2,502,719.593  pounds  net.  $103,884,760 

Duty  on  same,  47.500.749 

Domestic  sugar,  all  kinds,  43,922,169 


$195,307,678 

To  this  amount  must  be  added  the  cost  of  refining,  handling, 
etc.,  which  would  bring  uj^  the  amount  to  considerably  over 
$200,000,000  per  annum,  even  if  the  exports  are  deducted. 
This  would  give  a  net  cost  per  capita  of  about  $4.  Thus,  if 
the  per  capita  consumption  ot  wheat  is  taken  at  5  bushels,  the 
national  sugar  bill  equals  that  of  wheat.  When  it  is  considered 
that  this  sugar  bill,  through  the  operation  of  the  present  tariff', 
is  unnecessarily  increased  over  $70,000,000  annually,  with  a 
view  to  maintain  a  languishing  industry,  it  appears  somewhat 
strange  that  tariff'  reformers  are  so  verv  reticent  upon  tliis 
question.  In  no  other  article  does  the  tariff"  tax  weigh  upon  the 
workman  so  severely  as  tha't  of  sugar.  At  the  present  moment 
the  north-western  wheat  producer  is  compelled  to  sell  his  wheat 
in  an  open  market  and  against  labor  and  a  climate  that  is 
entirely  against  him,  yet  he  is  obliged  to  pay  more  than  treble 
as  much  for  his  sugar  as  his  competitor.  Take  the  English 
farmer  ;  he  can  ))urchase  his  sugar  at  three  and  one-half  cents 
per  pound,  while  in  the  north-west  our  farmer  has  to  pay  from 
seven  and  one-half  cents  to  eight  cents  for  exactly  the  same 
quality.  If,  however,  we  compare  the  India  wheat  producer, 
the  comparison  is  much  more  unfavorable.  India  produces 
sugar  at  less  cost  than  any  other  country  in  the  world,  and  the 
quality  of  sugar  used  by  the  Indian  wheat  producer,  while 
being  inferior  to  that  consumed  bv  the  American  farmer,  does 
not  cost  at  the  outside  more  than  2c.  per  pound,  or  about  one 
fourth  the  cost  of  sugar  to  our  wheat  producer.  In  the  face  of 
such  facts  how  is  it  jjossible  for  our  farmer  to  comj^ete  w  ith 
Indian  wheat.''  Vi\  our  present  tariff  taxes  the  wheat  producer 
and  the  sugar  consumer  pay  over  $70,000,000  a  year  in  order 
to  protect  our  sugar  iiidustrx". 


it"  it  were  possible  to  ever  produce  suHicieiit  siis^ar  to  meet 
our  consumptive  requirements  at  a  reasonable  cost  theic  would 
be  at  least  some  reason  for  maintaining  the  present  tarill".  Hut 
there  is  not.  If  we  cannot  produce  sugar  at  less  than  60  per 
•  cent,  more  than  other  countries,  why  waste  our  land  on  fruit- 
less attempts  to  build  up  an  artificial  industi\-.  The  bulk  of 
this  $70,000,000  is  paid  by  the  industri;.!  and  producing  class 
of  the  country.  Thus  we  handicap  oursches  to  this  extent  bv 
taxing  such  a  necessary  of  life  as  sugar.  I'^ee  sugar  would 
reduce  the  cost  to  the  consumers  on  the  Paciiic  coast  fully  one 
half,  or,  in  other  words,  it  would  put  about  $3,500,000  into 
their  pockets  annually.  Our  statesmen  will  do  well  to  ask  the 
question  wliy  it  is  that  sugar  should  have  such  a  large  sliare  in 
producing  revenue,  and  upon  what  grounds  this  excessive  tax 
is  continued?  It  cannot  be  supported  from  a  necessitous  point 
as  our  reveiuie  is  ample.  As  a  protective  experiment  it  has 
utterly  failed,  for  the  industry  has  declined  during  tiie  past 
lorty  years.  Not  more  than  12  per  cent,  of  our  consumptixe 
recpiireiuents  can  be  produced  under  the  most  favorable  circum- 
stances, and  to  produce  this  the  consumer  is  made  to  pav  over 
$70,000,000  more  tiian  the  absolute  value  of  the  product. 
L'ndcr  such  conditions  the  tariif  upon  sugar  demands  revision 
at  least.  No  industry  extending  o\er  half  a  centurv  as  sugar 
has  shoidd  require  such  an  expenditure  to  keep  ali\e.  particu- 
larly when  it  weighs  so  heaxily  upon  the  poorer  portion  of  our 
population.  There  are  abundant  reasons  therefore,  wiiich  de- 
mand that  tlie  attention  of  our  legislators  sliould  be  directed 
towards  a  moie  ecjual  and  just  tariH'on  sugar. 


AMERICAN  SHIPPING, 


New  York.  Feb.  14,  1S86. 
Mv  Dear  JMr.   Kelly, 

Your  note  has  been  received.  I  seldom  meddle 
■with  statistics.  Figures  can  be  made  to  lie  as  well  as  to  tell 
the  truth.  The  arguments  for  free  trade  are  not  based  upon 
arithmetic.  They  have  the  solid  foundation  of  justice,  liberty, 
and  the  inalienable  right  of  men  to  control  their  own  property 
for  their  own  benefit,  and  not  for  that  of  others.  However,  I 
think  I  ma}-  for  once  make  use  of  figures  in  answering  your 
question  i-egarding  the  rise  and  fall  of  American  Commercial 
Shipping  from  1S40  to  1S86. 

In  1S40  our  tonnage  engaged  in  foreign  trade  was  763,838 
tons.  In  1885  it  was  1,362,814  tons.  It  had  increased  from 
1S40  to  1 861,  so  that  in  that  year  it  amounted  to  3,496,''894  tons. 
From  that  date  its  downward  career  commenced  and  lessened 
with  increasing  ratio  until  as  just  stated  in  1S85,  it  was  just 
about  one-half  of  wdiat  it  was  at  its  highest  point. 

I  thank  you  for  asking  the  questions  because  in  my  search  I 
find  a  singular  accompaniment  of  this  rise  and  fall.  In  1S40 
the  average  duty  on  imports  was  34.39  per  cent.  In  1861, 
when  our  tonnage  was  at  its  height  the  average  duty  was  only 
18.64  P^'^"  cent.,  and  in  1SS5,  while  the  tonnage  is  sliding 
downwards,  the  average  duty  46.07  per  cent,  is  higher  than  any 
that  has  existed  since  the  year  1831.  There  is  something  very 
significant  about  these  figures.  It  seems  to  me  that  they  may 
account  for  some  part  of  the  decline  of  our  shipping.  Ask  some 
of  your  protectionist  friends. 

Perha]5s  they  can  explain  them  bv  making  them  lie,  for  that 
is  the  only  way  in  which  the  thing  can  be  done.  After  they 
have  satisfied  themselves  on  this  point  with  the  old  explanation 
thai  our  commercial    marine  came  to  o'rief  because  ot  the  civil 


\var,  ask  tlicm  tlirsc  few  (jucstioiis  iVoin  the  marine  catecliisin  : 

Was  not  tlie  maltcr  hrou^ht  to  the  attention  of  the  j)ii])lic 
before  the  civil  war,  anvl  before  the  niisfcjrtune  forseen  coni- 
niencecl  ? 

Was  there  any  decline  while  the  bnsiness  of  the  ocean  was 
carrietl  on  in  wooden  sailin;^  ships.  Did  aiiNbodv  ask  tor 
bountv  then  ? 

Was  not  the  cost  of  woodeti  sailin!^  ships  as  low  or  perhaps 
lower  in  the  United  Slates  than  in  England? 

During  the  civil  war  was  not  the  transition  going  on  frcjni 
the  wooden  sailing  ship  to  the  iron  screw  steamship? 

When  we  came  out  of  the  war  did  we  not  find  ourselves 
A  iitually  without  either? 

W^ere  we  very  sory  to  get  rid  of  our  useless  old  sailing  ships? 

Were  we  not  sorry  that  we  could  not  replace  them  with  iron 
sfeamships? 

W^ere  not  our  captains,  otticers,  and  sailors  then  out  of  eni- 
plovment  because  of  this  impossibility? 

Who  are  protected  by  our  system  of  protection.  vShip- 
builders  who  build  no  ships  or  foreigners  who  are  doing  our 
carrying  trade  because  oiu"  own  people  are  not  allowed  to  par- 
ticipate in  it? 

I  believe  I  have  answered  the  questions  you  proposed  to  me. 
Now  call  on  the  protectionists  to  stand  up.  They  will  find  it 
easier  to  taclcle  the  Assembly's  Catechism  than  to  wrestle  with 
this. 

Yours  \  er\-  truh', 

loii.N    CooM.w. 

D.   D.   Kin.i.Y,  Esc^. 


FREE     TRADE 


BY  THE   RT.    HON.   W.    E.  GLADSTONE. 


A  Speech  delroered  at  Lesds^   England.   October.,  l88i. 


Air.  Ghulstone  said:  Mr.  Kitson  and  Gentlemen. — I  am  very 
sensible  of  tlie  great  honor  which  you  have  done  me  to-day  in 
presenting  me  with  this  address.  It  contains,  in  short  com- 
pass, allusions  to  many  points  of  the  greatest  importance.  So 
far  as  those 'embrace  the  legislative  action  of  the  Government, 
1  need  not,  I  think,  assure  you  of  our  great  anxiety  to  make 
progress  in  the  direction,  and  generally  in  the  manner  tiiat  vou 
desire  :  J^ut  it  is  only  right  that  I  should  call  your  attention— 
and,  indeed  I  must  take  every  opportunity  that  presents  itself 
of  calling  the  attjntion  of  the  public  at  large — to  the  very 
serious  obstacles  tliat  now  imj^ede  the  progress  of  business  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  and  to  assure  you  that  for  the  sake  of 
every  interest,  and  for  the  sake  of  every  measure,  it  has  become 
a  matter  of  vital  importance  to  consider  in  what  way  that  great 
and  noble  legislative  instrument,  the  House  of  Commons — 
itself  the  noblest  legishuive  instrument  in  the  world — can  De 
restored  to  that  efficiency  which  it  once  possessed,  if  possible 
even  with  an  extension  and  increase  of  that  efHciencv.  Because, 
gentlemen,,  experience  has  proxed  that  with  the  progress  of 
lime  and  with  the  great  accumulation  of  legislative  labors  of 
which  this  century  has  been  tlie  witness,  instead  of  clearing  olV 
the  call  upon  us  for  fresh  exertion,  the  developing  wants  ot  an 
enlarged,  society  continually  augment  the  long  catalogue  of  our 
arrears,  and  if  we  are  to  deal  with  tliem  seriously  it  must  be 
not  only  by  approaching  each  of  them  witli  the  instrumental 
power    we    now    possess,  but    b\'    attempting    some  great  and 


crt'ectiial  improvement  in  the  rules  for  vvorkiii;^  the  instiumeiU 
itself. 

There  is,  however,  one  of  these  questions  to  which  1  will 
jiarticulurly  refer — the  question  of  the  French  Treaty  now 
uncL-r  nej^otiation — though  adjourneti  nej^otiation.  still  under 
nl'j^otiation — with  the  Commissioners  in  France.  I  will  not 
anticipate  the  results  of  that  nej^otiation.  It  would  be  pre- 
mature. But  as  to  the  basis  on  which  the  nc'^otiation  is  con- 
ducted you  may  rely  upon  it  that  we  are  in  no  doubt  or  diffi- 
culty. We  think  that  we  understand  the  general  sentiment  of 
the  British  public — thj  comnurcial  public — upon  the  subject, 
and  our  own  opinions  are  in  conformity  with  that  sentiment. 
1,  for  my  part,  lookback  with  the  deepest  interest  upon  the 
share  that  I  had  in  concluding — at  least  I  will  not  say  so  much 
in  concluding: — but  in  conducting  on  this  side  of  the  water, 
and  within  the  walls  of  Parliament  as  well  as  in  administration, 
the  proceedings  which  led  to  that  memorable  French  treaty 
in  i860.  It  is  quite  true  that  that  treat}'  did  not  produce  the 
\\  hole  of  the  etlccts  that  some  too  sanguine  anticipations  may 
possibly  have  expected  from  it — that  it  did  not  produce  a  uni- 
\crs  il  smash  of  protective  duties  as  I  wish  it  had  throughout 
the  ci\  ilized  worUl.  But  it  ditl  something.  It  enormously  in- 
creased the  trade  between  this  country  and  France.  It  knit 
more  closely  than  they  had  ever  been  knit  before  the  sentiments 
of  good  \Vill  between  this  country  and  France.  It  eifectually 
checked  antl  traversed  in  the  year  i860  tenJj.icies  of  a  very 
dilfercnt  kind  towards  needless  alarms  and  panics  and  tenden- 
cies towards  convulsion  aiul  contusion  in  Furope.  There  was 
no  iriore  powerful  instrument  for  confining  and  controling  those 
wayward  and  angrv  spirits,  at  t'.iat  paiticular  crisis,  than  the 
commercial  treat\-  with  France.  It  produced  no  inconsiderable 
clfect  for  a  number  of  \ears  upon  the  legislation  of  various 
European  countries,  which  tended  less  tlecisiveh'  than  we 
couKl  have  desired,  but  still  intelligibly  and  beneficially,  in  the 
direction  of  freedom  of  trade. 

There  has  been  of  late  a  reaction,  as  we  know,  in  \arious 
countries.  The  ])t)litical  economy  of  Germany  walks  in  a 
direction  ad\ers.-  to  ours.        But    as    I  ha\e   said,  and  I  do  nol 


3^ 

hesitate  to  repeat  it  to  you.  when  we  observe  what  notions  are 
ribroad  in  our  country,  what  doctrines  are  held,  what  specifics 
are  recommended  for  the  purpose  of  recovering  trade  from  its 
partial  contraction — I  won't  say  decay,  for  decayed  it  lias  not — 
but  from  its  partial  contraction,  I  think  we  cannot  very  much 
wonder  if  the  same  errors  have  scope  and  go  abroad  in  other 
countries  and  have  more  influence  on  the  legislation  of  other 
countries  than,  after  our  large  and  rich  experience,  they  are 
likely  to  have  in  ours.  For  although,  as  this  is  not  a  political 
assemblv,  I  have  not  th.;  slightest  intention  to  make  a  political 
speech  to  you,  yet  I  may  say  that  I  express  the  firmest  and 
stiongest  conviction  that  no  Government  that  can  exist  in  this 
country  will  either  soon  or  Lite  pledge  its  responsibility  to  any 
proposals  for  restoring  protective  duties.  You  might  as  well 
attempt  to  overthrow  any  institution  of  the  country  as  to  over- 
throw the  Free  Trade  legislation.  It  is  not  in  vain  that  a 
country  of  tliis  kind,  with  the  opportunities  that,  thank  God. 
we  possess  for  free  deliberation,  devotes  a  quarter  of  a  centur\ 
of  its  life  towards  breaking  down  its  ancient  and  complicated 
tariff  and  making  its  trade  free  to  all  the  world.  We  are  not 
in  the  habit  of  undoing  our  great  legislative  acts.  Foreign 
observers  of  the  proceedings  of  this  country  find  much  to  criti- 
cise, find  something  to  admire,  and  one  of  the  subjects  which 
they  select  for  admiration  is  this,  that  progress  in  this  country, 
if  it  be  not  always  rapid,  yet  is  always  sure,  and  that  when  we 
have  made  steps  in  advance  we  do  not  follow  them  by  undoing 
our  own  labor  and  making  steps  in  retreat.  And  therefore, 
gentlemen,  as  regards  this  legislation,  you  might  as  well  at- 
tempt to  overthrew  trial  by  jury  ;  you  might  as  well  attempt 
to  overthrow  the  right  of  petition  or  of  public  meeting ;  you 
might  as  well  attempt  to  tear  out  of  our  social  and  political 
system,  anv  one  of  the  most  cherished  ideas  that  Englishmen 
have  inherited  from  centuries  of  historv,  as  to  overset  the  Free 
Trade  legislation.  Do  not  suppose  that  on  that  account  it  is 
my  opinion  that  the  strange  theories  that  have  now  for  a 
monient  lifted  their  heads  fnjm  their  native  obscurity  into  light 
are  matters  of  small  importance,  or  will  do  no  mischief. 

I  have  spoken  on  this  subject  in  another  place.     They  may 
become  the  subject  matter  of  verv  serious  conflict  between  par- 


tics;  they  may  create  ami  propagate  (leliisii)n  in  various 
quarters  and  places  of  the  country  ;  they  may  be  made  use  of 
for  this  or  that  particuhir  view  ;  they  may  influence  this  or  that 
election  ;  they  may  lead  to  great  waste  of  time,  and  to  a  good 
deal  of  confusion  in  the  relations  of  party  and  politics — all  these 
are  evils  whicli  I  hope  we  shall  be  able  to  obviate  and  to  keep 
down.  But  1  wish  to  point  out  to  you  that  at  least,  in  my  firm 
con\'iction,  there  is  a  limit  to  these  evils,  and  that  the  great 
legislation  which  marked  the  lifetime  of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  of 
jVIr.  Cobden,  and  with  which  the  name  of  Mr.  Bright  is  in- 
separably connected — is,  in  my  opinion,  resting  uJDon  such 
foundations  that  nothing  can  shake  it,  and  that  the  speeches 
and  tlie  articles,  and  the  treaties  that  are  now  floating  about  in 
the  atmosphere  pass  as  the  wind  around  the  solid  structure 
within  whose  walls  we  stand,  and  have  no  more  eiTect  than 
the  idle  breeze  has  upon  the  stones  of  this  solid  structure. 

I  ought  to  s:iy  one  word  more  before  I  pass  from  this  sub- 
ject. I  must  say  a  word  upon  the  subject  of  the  Commercial 
Treaty  with  France.  I  read  with  great  interest  the  remarks  of 
Sir  Staflbrd  Northcote  on  this  subject,  and  I  am  bound  to  say 
tliat  I  think  they  state  the  case  very  fairly.  It  is  a  balance  of 
the  consiilerations  which  we  had  to  take  into  view.  There  are 
great  disadvantages  attaching  to  all  conmiercial  treaties,  and 
the  most  serious  disadvantage  of  them  all  is  this,  that  there  is  a 
great  tendcnc)' — when  you  are  only  suggesting  to  people  that 
they  should  do  what  is  good  for  themselves — there  is  a  great 
tendency  to  assume  the  position  of  requesting  them  to  do  some- 
thing simply  because  it  is  good  for  vou.  There  is  a  tendency 
to  misrepresent  and  tlislocate,  if  I  may  say  so,  the  true  idea  ot 
commerce,  wdiich  rests  and  is  founded  upon  this  principle — 
that  in  the  op-crations  of  commerce  it  is  absolutely  impossil)le  tor 
a  country  to  do  good  to  itself  without  at  the  same  time  doing 
good  to  other  people.  You  may  depend  upon  this,  gentlemen 
— I  cannot  undertake  at  this  moment  to  say,  though  we  ha\e 
good  hopes — I  will  not  undertake  at  tiiis  moment  to  say 
whether  we  shall  ha\e  a  treaty  with  France  or  not;  but  upon 
this  you  may  rely,  that  mucli  as  we  value  association  with 
France,  great  as  is  the  political  value  ot  a  well  concluded  com- 


40 

nierciiil  negotiation,  we  do  not  think  it  oiu"  duty,  nor  within 
the  limits  of  our  rights  to  purchase  that  poHtical  advantage  by 
a  sacrifice  of  the  true  principles  of  our  commercial  relations  ; 
and  if  3'ou  have  a  treaty  with  France,  you  may  depend  upon  it 
that  it  shall  not  be,  with  our  assent,  taking  it  all  in  all,  a  treaty 
of  retrogression  either  small  or  great. 

I  will  not  say  many  words  to  you  about  mvself.  Although 
[  spring  from  a  commercial  famil}',  yet  when  I  entered  Parlia- 
ment it  was  not  for  a  good  many  years  that  my  mind  was 
turned  to  economical  subjects;  in  truth,  it  was  not  until  1841, 
when,  on  the  proposal  of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  I  accepted  the  otfice 
of  Vice-President  of  the  Board  of  Trade.  At  that  period  the 
Board  of  Trade  was  the  department  which  administered  to  a 
great  extent  the  functions,  which  have  since  then  passed'princi- 
pally  into  the  hands  of  the  Treasury,  connected  with  the  fiscal 
laws  of  the  country.  I  had  inherited,  as  nearly  the  whole  Con- 
servative party  had,  and  likewise,  as  you  know,  no  incon- 
siderable portion  of  the  Liberal  party  down  to  that  period  had 
inherited  the  ideas  and  traditions  of  Protection.  But  when  it 
became  my  duty  in  the  Board  of  trade  to  apply  myself,  with 
the  energies  of  youth  which  I  then  possessed,  to  the  con- 
sideration of  those  subjects,  I  need  not  say  that  I  found  those 
traditions  crumble  away  rapidly  under  my  feet,  and  before  I 
had  been  there  twelve  months  my  name  had  become  a  b)  -word, 
and  was  quoted  in  Protectionist  assemblies  as  that  of  a  man 
who  was  not  to  be  trusted.  It  was  quite  true,  gentlemen. 
Moreover,  they  found  out  about  the  same  time  that  Sir  Robert 
Peel  could  not  be  trusted,  and  not  only  that,  but  as  we  got 
older  and  older,  and  lived  on  from  year  to  year,  the  matter  got 
worse  and  worse,  and  we  became  still  less  worthy  of  the  public 
c  >nfidence  on  the  ground  of  maintaining  any  system  of  Pro- 
tection. Well,  now,  gentlemen,  as  we  are  in  an  assembly  of 
nj  vast  numbers,  altliough  of  great  infiuenceaiul  power,  and  as 
we  are  not  met  upon  political  or  party  grounds,  let  me  call 
yDur  attention  for  a  few  minutes  to  a  sul)ject  wiiicii  I  purposely 
omitted  yesterday  in  my  address  in  a  larger  room.  The  main 
])roposition  is  capable  of  being  considered  with  the  utmost 
calmness  and  coolness — whether  we  have  been  right,  after  all. 


•1' 

in  what  we  have  been  doinj^-,  of  whether  a  great  delusion  has 
jjassed  upon  us.  And  I  do  this,  not  for  your  sakes,  or  for  mv 
own,  but  for  the  sake  of  weaker  brethren — if  I  may  so  venture 
to  call  them — who  really  have,  in  certain  cases  and  in  various 
classes  of  the  community,  embraced,  and  I  have  no  doubt  in 
perfect  gootl  fiiith,  the  belief  that  we  have  been  acting  under  a 
delusion,  and  that  Free  Trade  has  been  an  error  and  a  failure. 
Fortunately  it  does  not  require  to  be  discussed  at  anv  great 
length,  and  I  think  I  can  go  through  it  without  making  anv 
outrageous  claim  upon  your  patience. 

I  take  the  date  of  1840  as  that  of  the  hist  year  in  which  the 
j^rotective  system  enjoyed  perfect  peace.  In  everv  year  after 
that  it  was  subject  to  a  series  of  discussions  and  disturbances, 
which,  in  the  first  place,  produced  the  most  grievous  eHects 
u[)on  its  health;  and,  in  the  second  led  to  its  utter  downfall. 
Jjut  before  1840  what  was  the  condition  ot  the  countrv?  If  I 
regard  the  condition  of  this  countr\-  as  to  wealth,  I  find  that 
between  the  beginning  of  the  century  and  1840  there  was  a 
verv  large  increase  of  the  population,  owing  to  causjs  partlv 
healthful  and  partly  otherwise',  but  the  wealth  of  the  countrv 
increased  in  a  less  proportion  than  the  population  :  and  what 
was  much  more  important  was  this,  it  increased  in  the  hands 
of  the  class  already  possessed  of  wealth,  but  no  share  of  this  in- 
crease went  to  the  mass  of  the  people.  I  am  afraid  I  am  cor- 
rect in  saying,  that  if  we  take  the  mass  of  our  agricultural 
population  in  particular,  the  historv  of  these  vears  was  a 
history  of  going  from  bad  to  worse,  a  history  of  increasing 
social  degratlation.  a  history  of  absolute  want  in  various  de- 
grees, and  in  man)'  or  most  of  the  counties  in  this  countr\-,  of 
tiie  means  of  decent  lodging,  decent  clothing,  and  sufficient 
t'eeiling,  until  that  great  Act,  one  of  the  wisest  and  most  im- 
l^ortant  of  modern  legislation,  the  new  Poor  Law  .\ct,  was 
passed  in  1S34.  '"^^'  with  slow  and  sure  operation  began  to 
check  the  more  grievous  forms  of  certain  mischiefs,  but  of 
course  without  the  power  of  being  able  to  supply  the  new  \  ital 
energies  which  had  to  be  sought  in  other  qu;*ters.  That, 
generally  speaking,  was  our  material  condition.  And  what 
was    our    moral     condition:      1    well     rrnu-nibrr,    on    the    tir>t 


4- 

occasion  (jf  m\  entering  Parliament  how  we  heard  from  well- 
intentioned  men  the  sorest  and  the  most  just  lamentations  over 
the  increase  of  crime  under  the  blessed  influence  of  Protection, 
and  a  well-informed  author  quotes  the  numbers  thus  for  the 
crimes  committed  in  England  and  taken  notice  ot  by  public 
justice:  that  in  1809  they  had  been  5,350:  in  1818  they  had 
swollen,  after  the  Peace,  and  with  the  special  causes  of  distress 
that  the  Peac^  and  that  the  unhappy  Corn  Law  brought  with 
them,  they  had  swollen  to  14,254;  and  in  1839  they  rose  to 
18,675.  That,  gentlemen,  I  give  you  as  an  indication  of  the 
moral  influences  attaching  to  the  system  of  Protection,  because 
I  warn  and  entreat  you  never  to  be  content  to  argue  the  ques- 
tion of  free  commerce  as  if  it  were  a  material  question  alone. 
It  is  just  as  strong  in  its  political,  in  its  social,  and  in  its  moral 
aspects  as  it  is  in  its  operation  upon  the  production  and  in- 
crease of  wealth. 

That  is  all  I  will  say  to  you  on  the  state  of  things  before 
1840.  Now,  let  me  consider  what  has  happened  since  1840. 
In  1841,  the  population  of  this  country — the  three  kingdoms — 
was  twentv-six  and  a-half  millions.  In  1881  the  population 
had  increased  to  35  millions ;  the  increase  was  eight  and  a- 
lialf  millions,  or  very  nearly,  and  closely  enough  for  my  pre- 
sent purpose,  an  increase  of  33  per  cent.  Now,  I  want  to 
compare,  first  with  the  increased  population  the  increase  of 
wealth,  and  though  I  shall  resort  to  the  Income-tax  in  the  first 
place  for  this  purpose,  I  shall  do  it  safely,  because  we  all  know 
tliat,  while  the  wealthy  classes  have  been  growing  wealthier, 
the  poorer  classes  have  likewise  been  gradually  emerging  from 
their  indigence,  and  that  freedom  of  commerce  has  showered 
its  benefits  over  them,  speaking  generally,  with  no  less  liber- 
ality and  no  less  cfficiencv  than  over  the  capitalists  of  this 
country.  The  increase  of  wages  in  this  country  has  borne,  if 
not  a  full  pro])ortion,  yet  some  proportion  to  the  increase  of 
capital,  and  has  formed  a  solid  addition  to  the  comforts  of  the 
pco])le,  such  as,  at  any  rate,  whether  sufiicient  or  not — and  of 
liiat  1  need  not  speak — is  withcnit  example  in  our  prior  history. 
Let  mc  look  at  the  progress  of  wealth  as  shown  by  the  Income- 
tax.      The    income    taxable    to    the    Income-tax    in    1S42    was 


43 

2i^i  millions;  in  iSSo  it  was  v4-  millions.  1  don't  inchule 
Ireland  in  the  return.  Yvry  lan^c  amounts  ot' income  had  in 
the  meantime,  whether  wisely  or  unwisely — and  I  need  not 
enter  on  that  subject  now — been  either  whoU}-  or  partially  e.\- 
cluded,  and  I  think  that  the  tax  may  have  lost  as  much  as  40 
millions  of  taxable  income  in  that  way.  That  would  make 
£^62,000.000  to  compare  with  £2^1,000.  The  result  ot  that 
is.  that  while  the  j^jopulation  of  the  country  had  grown  33  per 
cent,  the  wealth  of  the  coimtry,  instead  of  (growing  as  it  had 
done  before  at  a  rate  slower  than  the  population,  had  increased, 
and,  tested  by  the  Income-tax,  at  the  rate  of  130  per  cent :  and 
if  we  were  able  to  exhibit  the  mass  of  the  income  of  labor,  it  is 
})robable  that  it  would  have  exhibited  a  growth  hardly,  if  at  all 
less  remarkable.  The  trade  of  tiie  country  increased  by  the 
exports  of  British  produce  ;  and  in  this  increase  of  exports  I 
need  not  say  the  working  people  ha\e  a  share  perhaps  as  im- 
portant even  as  the  capitalist.  Where  in  1S40  they  were 
£'51-000,000,  in  1880  they  were  £2  33,000,000  ;  so  that  while 
the  population  of  the  country  had  grown  33  per  cent.,  the  ex- 
port trade  of  the  country  had  grown  at  the  rate  of  340  percent. 
As  to  the  sa\ings  of  the  mass  of  the  population — I  only  quote 
this  as  a  parti. d  fact  of  interest,  for  we  have  unfortunately  no 
eilectual  means  of  exhibiting  the  subject  completely — the 
sa\ings  deposited  in  savings  banks,  which  had  been  £24.500.000 
in  1840  were  £75,500,000  in  iSSo;  and  mi(k)ubte(lly  that 
£75.500,000  was  far  more  representative  of  the  savings  ot  the 
working  classes  through  the  Post  OfHce  savings  banks  in  1880 
than  the  £24.500.000  in  1840  hatl  been  re])resep.tati\  e  ol  the 
sa\ings  of  that  class. 

If  1  turn  to  the  other  side,  what  was  the  condition  of  the 
countr\- in  regard  to  pauperism  and  crime.'  The  earliest  re- 
turns that  I  have  found  of  the  able-bodietl  paupers  of  England 
and  Wales  gi\es  for  1S49  '^  number  of  201.000;  and  for  1880, 
with  a  \astlv  larger  population,  a  number  ot  i  i  i  .000.  !~ltill 
more  important  than  the  returns  of  pauperism  is  the  return  ot 
crime,  ami  the  persons  convicted  of  crime,  who  in  1840  had 
risen  to  34.000;  in  1881.  according  to  out  returns,  which  may 
not    preciselv     I'xhiliit     the     ):)roper    state    of    things — iu'cause 


44 

changes  have  taken  place  as  bet/.veen  summary  and  non-sum- 
mary jurisdiction,  but  which,  upon  the  whole,  will  exhibit 
them — these  convictions  had  sunk  from  34,000  to  15,600.  [ 
have  kept  my  word  in  so  far  that  these  facts  have  been  pre- 
sented to  you  in  a  brief  and  summary  form.  But  are  they  not 
administrative  and  conclusive  facts .-■  Is  it  possilile  for  any 
reasonable  man  not  to  be  satisfied  with  figures  like  th^se.'' 

As  to  the  reality  of  our  progress,  and  as  to  the  cause  of  our 
progress,  I  will  say  another  word  shortly.  Still  there  are  de- 
lusions— at  least  there  are  uncomfortable  dreams  to  bi'eak  the 
rest  of  some  of  our  fellow  cidzens.  Tliey  are  dreadfully 
afflicted  .vith  this  excess  of  imports.  In  passing  I  must  pay  a 
tribute  of  respect  to  one  class  of  Protectionists,  and  that  is  to 
the  gahant  men  who,  under  all  circumstances,  with  following 
or  vyithout  foll:)wing,  with  proof  or  without  proof,  and  quite 
irrespective  of  the  possibility  of  being  able  t(j  turn  the  matter 
to  account  at  elections,  stick  to  their  old  protective  doctrine. 
I  mention  that  because  the  subject  of  the  balance  of  trade  irre- 
sistibly and  rapidly  calls  to  my  mind  the  name  and  figure  of 
Mr.  Nevvdegute.  who  has  been  a  consistent,  but  I  must  sa\-  a 
highly  respectable  prophet  of  evil,  and  respected  for  his  un- 
swerving integrit\ .  and  for  the  great  regard  he  has  often  shown 
tor  Constitutional  principles  in  connection  with  this  painful 
subject  of  the  balance  of  trade.  But  you  are  aware  by  the  old 
doctrine  of  the  balance  of  trade  it  is  shown  we  have  sufi'eied  a 
loss  of  160  millions  of  money  within  a  comparatively  sliort 
period — about  a  generation  of  man.  '1  his  is  a  \ery  heavy  loss 
and  how  ha\e  we  paid  for  it.''  Oh,  you  pay  for  all  that  in  bul- 
lion. Well,  but  the  extraordinary  fact  is  this.  Here  the 
i)alance  of  trade  has  been  most  terribly  against  us  during  tlie 
last  five  years.  From  1S76  to  18S0,  when  the  imports — these 
terrible  imports  that  frown  upon  us  and  intimidate  us  in  every 
port  of  the  country  as  if  they  were  all  meant  for  dynamite  ex- 
plosions— these  imports  have  been  in  an  excess  of  £623,000,000 
over  the  exports,  and  yet  the  country  is  not  absolutely  ruined. 
]iut  while  these  £622,000,000  have  been  imported — and  we 
have  certainly  had  to  pay  for  what  \ve  liavc  imported — 
iiistead  of  losing  the  bullion,  tin-  imports  ot  bullion  have  been 


sliglitly  in  excess  of  the  exports.  The  imports  of  bullion  for 
these  five  years  have  ainounted  to  £147,000,000,  and  the  ex- 
ports have  amounted  to  £144,000,000,  so  that  besides  the 
£622,000.000  of  golds  which  we  have  got,  we  have  got 
£3,000,000  more  bullion  into  the  country.  But,  then  it  is  said, 
"Oh,  but  we  liave  paid  for  it  in  securities."  Why,  sir,  anyone 
who  goes  into  the  monc\-  market  will  know  that  the  invest- 
ments ot  England  abroad,  \arving  somewhat  from  year  to  year, 
have  been  tending  rapiJly  and  constantly  upwards;  and  were 
we  here  to  examine  into  and  anal}ze  tlie  history  and  meaning 
of  these  vast  imports,  you  know  very  well  it  would  be  my  duty 
to  point  out  that  no  inconsiderableproportion  of  them  represents 
the  dividenils  and  the  interest  receivable  and  received  by  us 
ui:)on  our  enormous  investments  abroad — investments  which 
are  valued  by  the  best  financial  authorities — non-ofiicial,  but 
the  best  private  authorities — at  about  1.300  millions  of  money, 
and  the  income  horn  which,  coming  back  to  us  e\  er\-  year, 
mainly  in  the  shape  of  imports,  cannot  be  said  to  be  less  than 
60  millions  a  year — our  income  in  foreign  countries  from 
the  surplus  of  wealth  which  we  have  sent  out  of  our  countrx'  to 
invest.    . 

So  much,  gentlemen,  for  the  balance  of  trade.  But  still  the\- 
are  not  satisfied  :  and  \ou  are  taught  to  believe  that  the  foreign 
trade  of  this  country  is  wasting  awa}-.  and  that  other  countries, 
owing  to  their  greater  wisdom,  have  none  of  the  inconveniences 
to  contend  with  that  we  are  obliged  to  encounter,  and  are  con- 
stantl\-  gnnving  in  all  the  elements  of  prosperitv.  And  the 
two  countries  wliich  our  misguided  bretliren  select  for  special 
admiration  are  ^Vmerica  and  France.  Well,  now,  the  com- 
merce of  France,  above  all  others,  requires  to  be  di\  ided  when 
\  ou  treat  its  exports  between  manufactures  and  jjroduce,  be- 
cause the  exports  of  its  produce  go  on  without  anv  material 
reference  to  this  protective  system.  Our  exports,  as  you  know 
\ery  well,  fell  seriously  between  1873  ami  1879.  lint  do  vou 
Suppose — because  we  are  invited  to  assume — that  the  exports  of 
manufactured  goods  in  other  countries  tlid  not  similarly  fall  .-* 
How  did  France,  with  its  jirotective  system,  fare  in  respect  to 
the  decrease  of  ex]:)orts .-      ()ur  exports  tell   iVom  a  high  degree 


to  one  comparatively  much  i  educed,  but  not  so  much  reduced 
as  the  exports  of  French  manufactures,  for  the  manufactures 
exported  by  France  in  iS49\vere  £49,000.000  sterHng  ;  in  1S79 
thev  had  sunk  to  £34.000,000  sterling,  and  that  was  a  greater 
diminution  measured  bv  per  centage  than  the  diminution  which 
took  place  in  this  country.  So  that  the  existence  of  the  pro- 
tective svstem  did  not  in  the  slightest  degree  mitigate,  but  on 
the  contrar\ ,  aggravated  a  decline  in  the  export  of  manufac- 
tured goods,  as  it  would  do  in  this  country,  if,  unhappilv.  we 
were  to  be  so  unwise — which  we  never  shall  be — as  to  try  tliis 
deadly  experiment. 

Well,  now,  there  is  also  an  idea  that  America  is  pursuing  a 
course  of  profound  wisdom  in  regard  to  its  protective  system, 
and  we  are  told  that  under  the  blessed  shelter  of  a  system  of 
that  kind  the  tender  infancy  of  trades  is  cherished,  which  after- 
wards, having  obtained  vigor,  will  go  forth  into  neutral  markets 
and  possess  the  world.  Gentlemen,  is  that  true.^  America 
has  been  too  long  in  various  degrees  a  protective  countr}'. 
Have  the  manufacturers  of  America  gone  forth  and  possessed 
the  world.'  How  do  they  compete  with  you  in  those  quarters 
of  the  world  which  are,  speaking  generally,  outside  the  influ- 
ences of  Protection.^  Gentlemen,  to  the  wliole  of  Asia,  to  the 
whole  of  Africa,  and  to  the  whole  of  Australasia — which  in  the 
main,  are  outside  this  question,  and  may  fairly  l^e  described  in 
the  rough  as  presenting  to  us  neutral  markets,  where  we  meet 
America  without  fear  or  favor,  one  way  or  the  other — the 
whole  (jf  the  exports  of  the  United  States  of  manufactured  goods 
to  those  countries  amount  to  £4.7^1,000;  while  the  exports  to 
those  same  quarters  from  the  United  Kingdom  were  £78,  [40.000. 
Gentlemen,  the  fact  is  this — America  is  a  young  country,  with 
enoruKius  vigor  and  enormous  internal  resources.  She  has 
committed — I  say  it,  I  hope,  not  with  disrespect ;  I  say  it  with 
strong  and  cordial  svuipathw  but  with  mucli  regret — she  is 
committing  errors  of  which  we  set  lier  an  example,  lint  from 
the  enormous  resources  of  her  home  market,  the  development 
of  which  internally  is  not  touched  by  Protection,  she  is  able  to 
commit  those  errors  with  less  fatal  consecjuences,  with  less  in- 
convenient conseriuences  upon  her  |)eople  than  we  experienced 


when  we  coinnuttcd  them  ;  and  the  enormous  development  ot 
American  resources  within,  casts  ahuost  entirely  into  the  shade 
the  puny  character  of  the  export  of  her  manufactures  to  the 
neutral  markets  of  the  world.  And  here,  (gentlemen,  I  am  re- 
minded tliat  I  was  <i^uilty  on  a  certain  occasion  of  s:atin<^  in  an 
article — not  a  political  article — that,  in  my  opinion,  it  was  far 
from  improbable  that  as  the  volume  of  the  future  was  unrolled, 
America,  with  its  vast  population  and  its  wonderful  resources, 
and  not  less  with  that  severe  education  which,  from  the  high 
price  of  labor,  America  is  receiving  in  the  strong  necessity  of 
resorting  to  every  description  of  labor-saving  contrivances,  and 
the  consequent  tlevelopment,  not  only  on  a  large  scale,  but 
down  to  the  smallest  scale  of  the  mechanical  genius  of  the 
country — on  that  account,  the  day  may  come  when  that 
c<)untr\  may  claim  to  possess  the  commercial  primacy  of  the 
world.  I  gave  sad  offence  to  many — to  many  of  those  who  tell 
\ou  that  they  are  ruined  already.  They  were  extremely  an- 
noyed ami  offended  on  account  of  this,  which  was  not  a  positive 
prediction,  but  an  intimation  of  a  probability.  I  won't  enter 
into  it  now.  I  know  that  was  an  offence  to  the  vanity  of  those 
who  are  vain  among  us.  But  for  my  part,  gentlemen.  I  think 
it  one  of  the  most  sacred  duties  of  a  public  man  to  tell  the 
things  which  he  thinks  to  be  of  interest  and  importance,  and 
which  mav  perhaps  convey  a  salutary  warning  to  his  countrv- 
mcn.  whether  liis  countrymen  like  to  hear  them  or  not ;  antl  I 
will  say  this,  that  as  long  as  America  adheres  to  the  F-*rotecti\e 
system,  your  commercial  primacy  is  secure.  Nothing  in  the 
world  can  wrest  it  from  }ou  while  America  continues  to  fetter 
her  own  strong  hands  and  arms,  and  with  these  fettered  arms 
is  content  to  compete  with  you,  who  are  free,  in  neutral  mai- 
kets.  And  as  long  as  America  follows  the  doctrine  of  Pro- 
tection, or  as  long  as  America  follows  the  doctrines  now  known 
as  those  of  Fair  Trade,  vou  are  perfectU  safe,  and  \o\i  need  not 
allow,  any  of  vou.  even  vour  ligiitcst  slumbers  to  be  disturbed 
bv  the  fear  that  America  will  take  from  \ou  vour  commercial 
jjrimacy. 

>sow.  gentlenan,  let  us  see  what  is  our  case  with  regard   to 
the  trade  of  the  world.      \\\'  in  this  countrv — whosr    life-blood 


4'^ 

the  vampire  of  Free  Trade  is  insidiously  sucking — let  us  see 
what  share  in  this  little  island  we  have  got  of  the  Free  Trade 
of  the  world.  In  iSSo  our  trade  with  the  world  amounted  to 
69S  millions  in  value,  the  largest,  I  believe,  ever  known  of  im- 
ports and  exports  taken  together,  and,  of  course,  re-exports  as 
well.  In  1S73,  the  year  of  our  largest  exports.  I  believe  the 
total  trade  represented  682  millions.  But  I  will  take  our  worst 
vear — the  year  1S79,  which  was  the  year  the  darkness  of  which 
called  forth  all  the  owls  and  the  bats  of  the  countrv  and  sent 
them  croaking  abroad  in  order  to  disturb  us,  and  if  possible  to 
teach  us  to  walk  in  the  ways  of  another  policv — in  1S79,  it  is 
quite  true,  the  trifling  sum  of  612  millions  was  all  that  passed 
through  our  hands  in  this  business  of  exchange,  with  a  popu- 
lation of  3^  millions  of  people.  Well,  now,  let  us  compare 
the  trade  and  population  of  some  other  countries.  The  Ger- 
nian  Empire,  with  40  millions  of  people,  had  371  millions  of 
trade.  The  United  States,  with  50  millions  of  people,  had  239 
millions  of  external  trade,  most  of  which,  or  an  ^enormous 
shaie  of  which,  vou  know  was  owing  to  our  demand  tor  the 
food  and  provisions  that,  thank  God,  she  produces.  And  while 
we,  with  a  population  of  35  millions,  had  a  trade  of  612  mil- 
lions, these  two  countries  together — two  of  the  most  civilized 
countries  in  the  world,  both  of  them  highly  protective — had 
with  a  population  of  90  millions,  a  trade  of  610  millions;  so 
that  conparing  ourselves  with  these  great  and  intelligent 
countries,  man  with  man,  you  have  nearly  three  tivnes  the 
amount  of  trade  there  is  in  their  hands.  Take,  again,  three 
other  countries  which  I  take  on  account  of  the  large  figures 
they  present,  their  high  place  in  the  trade  of  the  world. 
France  has  313  millions  of  trade,  with  36  millions  of  people. 
Russia  has  183  millions  of  trade,  with  80  millions  of  people. 
Holland  has  116  millions  of  trade — a  good  deal  of  which,  as 
we  all  know,  is  transit  trade  for  the  supply  of  the  interior 
parts  of  the  Continent — Holland,  I  say,  has  116  millions  of 
trade,  with  five  millions,  say  of  people.  Then  again,  we  have 
a  population  of  121  millions,  with  a  trade  of  61 2  millions, 
exactly  that  which  in  tlie  disastrous  year  of  1879  fell  to  our 
■-hare  with  a  people  of  35  millions. 


49 

Now  the  reason  I  lui\e  quoted  these  particiihirs  is  because  I 
have  not  yet  encountered  that  whicli  is  the  favorite  plea  of  our 
errin^ij  bretliren — nainel}',  that  this  is  all  owing  to  the  railways 
and  thetelegraphs.  You  know  that  is  what  they  say.  They  say, 
"We  admit  there  is  some  increase  in  trade."  They  do  admit 
positively  that  450  millions  is  a  larger  sum  than  51  millions — 
hut  it  is  all  owing  to  the  railways  and  telegraphs  ;  but  if  it  is 
owing  to  the  railways  and  telegraphs,  why  have  not  the  rail- 
ways and  telegraphs  carried  the  trade  of  the  world  from  our 
hands  to  the  hands  of  Germany,  America,  France,  Russia  and 
Holland,  which  are  full  of  railways  and  telegraphs — some  of 
them  even  fuller  than  we  are?  Why  are  they  not  pointing  to 
our  depression  of  trade  and  showing  how  small  our  population 
and  trade  are — for  they  are  protective  countries  except  Hol- 
land— showing  how  small  thev  are  in  comparison  with  theirs, 
instead  of  pointing  to  thcni  in  irrefragible  figures  showing  that 
1*  ree  Trade  plus  the  railways  have  done  for  us  ten  times  more 
than  Protection  plus  railways  have  done  for  France,  or 
America,  or  for  Germanv,  or  for  anv  of  the  rest  of  the 
countries. 

And.  gentlemen,  that  brings  me  to  the  last  point  that  I  in- 
tend to  argue.  Init.  really^  I  have  made  very  little  argument.  I 
ha\e  not  required  to  make  argument,  or  to  wander  into  the 
mazes  of  political  economy.  Very  simple  facts  and  figures, 
after  all  not  outrageous  in  their  number,  ha\e  constituted  the 
pith  and  the  substance  of  the  statement  I  have  laid  before  you. 
But  I  am  desirous  if  I  can  to  get  rid  of  this  remaining  false  im- 
pression about  the  railwavs  and  the  telegraphs,  which  have 
done  an  infinity  of  good  for  us  ;  but  at  the  same  time  I  am  per- 
haps entitled  to  sav — because  through  the  medium  of  one  of 
our  most  widelv  circulating  monthlv  magazines,  before  the 
cares  of  office  were  upon  me,  I  endeavored  to  make  a  very 
close  and  careful  analvsis  bv  comparison  of  the  consequences 
of  railway  and  telegraphic  enterprise  on  the  one  side  and  of 
commercial  legislation  in  the  direction  of  tVeedom  on  the  other, 
and  seemed  to  myself  to  establish — at  any  rate  no  one  has  con- 
tested the  argument — the  conclusion  that,  although  very  much 
is  due  to  the  iail\va\  s  and   U'Iegra]ihs.  '^till    more  is  due  to   that 


simple  and  happy  speciHc  of  uabinding  the  arm  of  British  en- 
terprise, which  formerly  we  kept  in  fetters,  and  allowing  it  fair 
play  in  the  general  competition  of  the  world.  But  I  think 
there  is  one  point  yet  remaining,  which,  if  possible,  affords 
still  clearer  demonstration  than  any  that  I  have  quoted,  and  that 
is  what  has  happened  to  our  shipping.  Now,  if  we  compare 
what  has  happened  to  the  shipping  of  this  country  with  what 
has  happened  to  shipping  elsewhere,  then,  indeed,  the  results 
of  that  comparison  are  remarkable;  because,  gentlemen,  you 
mav  remember  that  when  tlie  discussions  on  the  repeal  of  the 
Navigation  Laws  arose,  it  was  contended,  and  contended  with 
some  truth — I  felt  it  myself,  for  one — that  the  pressure  of 
foreign  protective  and  prohibitory  laws  upon  our  shipping  is 
much  severer  than  upon  our  goods,  inasmuch  as  it  otten  hap- 
pens, for  example,  that  the  law  of  commerce  requiring  a  cargo 
to  be  sent  to  a  certain  port  in  a  British  ship  in  free  competition 
with  a  ship  of  the  country  to  which  that  port  belongs,  that 
that  same  law  would  require,  if  human  law  permitted,  that 
the  next  voyage  should  be  from  that  port  to  some  other  port  to 
which  the  law  of  the  country  does  not  permit  the  British  ship 
to  go  at  all,  and  from  which  it  is  excluded  by  an  absolute  pro- 
hiliition,  while  its  own  ship  is  allowed  to  go  to  it.  However, 
I  need  not  enter  into  these  details.  It  is  admitted  that  in  no 
case  could  competition  be  more  severe.  I  believe  in  no  case 
C(ndd  it  be  so  severe  as  in  the  case  ot  the  competition  of  British 
ships  with  foreign  siiips.  Consequently,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
repeal  of  the  Navigation  Laws,  the  whole  Protectionist  party  of 
the  country  went  into  the  deepest  mourning,  and  they  said  in 
solemn  tones — for  they  rose  to  higher  flights  than  usual — and 
said  it  represented  not  protection  only  but  pati'iotism,  a  word 
of  which  we  iiave  licard  a  good  deal  on  some  more  recent 
occasions.  They  told  us  that  the  repeal  of  the  Navigation 
Laws  w'as  the  destruction  of  the  wooden  walls  of  old  England, 
and  meant  neither  niDre  nor  less,  according  to  the  favorite 
phrase,  than  her  reduction  to  the  rank  of  a  third-rate  Power.  All 
you  who  are  old  enough — and  lam  happy  to  think  some  of  you 
are  not  old  enough — will  recollect  the  appalling  vaticinations 
wliicli  went   fortii  "thick  as  the  leaves    in   Vallombrosa"  over 


the  whole  of  tlie  country.  Hut  the  result  has  l)een  where  the 
competition  was  the  sharpest  there  the  prosperity  has  been  the 
most  extraordinary — I  might  say,  had  it  not  been  realized,  in 
fact  almost  incredible.  The  tonnage  of  Great  Brittain  in  1840 
was  6,490,000  tons.  That  tonnage  had  risen  in  18S0  to 
41,348,000  tons,  or  was  multiplied  more  than  sixfold. 

Now,  that  is  an  enormous  result,  and  that  is  a  result  not  due 
to  railways,  because  the  railways  do  not  run  over  the  sea.  It  is 
due  to  British  energy  working  without  any  other  advantage 
than  that.  And  it  is  a  serious  advantage,  especially  in  certain 
states  of  the  world.  It  may  be  that  we  have  become  the  hf)me 
of  the  shipbuilding  trade  of  the  world.  l?ut  as  between  nation 
and  nation,  that  is  a  very  small  matter.  The  shipbuilder  of 
the  Clyde  will  build  a  ship  for  a  man  in  Havre  on  the  same 
terms  as  he  will  build  a  ship  for  a  man  in  Hull,  and  it  will 
cost  him  as  much  to  send  the  ship  round  to  Hull  as  it  will  for 
him  to  send  it  round  to  Havre.  Therefore,  there  is  no  facti- 
tious advantage  to  account  for  this  astonishing  result. 

But  [  have  got  something  to  explain  that  in  my  mind  is  a 
most  satisfactorv,  although  it  might  l)e  taken  on  the  other  side 
of  tiie  objection.  I  do  not  at  all  mean  to  say  that  our  ships  are 
more  than  six  times  the  bulk  in  18S0  than  they  were  in  1840. 
Not  at  all.  They  are  nothing  of  the  kind.  The  reports  that 
I  have  given  to  vou  are  the  reports  founded  upon  clearances 
inward  and  outward.  The\'  are  the  measures  of  the  actual 
tonnage  emploved  in  doing  actual  work.  It  is  quite  true  we 
have  not  got  six  times  the  capital  involved  in  the  fabrics  of 
ships.  What  does  that  mean  .-  What  will  be  your  reply .'  So 
much  the  better.  With  the  smaller  capital  involved  you  are 
doing  a  greater  work.  We  are  doing  six  times  the  work  and 
six  times  the  amount  of  tonnage,  because  of  the  employment 
of  steam,  of  larger  vessels,  and  of  better  machinery  on  board, 
but  with  nothing  approaching  an  increase  of  six  times  the 
number  of  seamen,  and  doing  the  work,  moreover,  which  six 
times  the  number  of  seamen  alone  could,  under  the  old  meth- 
ods of  navigation,  ha\e  pursued,  and  that  is  not  owing  to  rail- 
\va\s  :  that  is  o\\  ing  to  the  eflect  of  freedom,  combined  with 
tile  remarkable  aihantages  which    ha\e  been  gained  bv  chang- 


ing   from  wooden  to  iron   shipbuilding   in  the  conduct  of  the 
commerce  of  the  world. 

And  now,  gentlemen,  what  is  the  state  of  the  case  with 
regard  to  protected  countries?  There  is  a  great  bugbear  that 
is  continually  paraded  before  us — the  bugbear  of  the  United 
States.  And  what  has  become  of  the  shipping  of  the  United 
States,  and  what  has  become  of  that  shipping  in  its  competi- 
tion with  British  shipping?  That  shipping  competes  with 
British  shipping  not  only  upon  equal  and  upon  favored  terms, 
ior  this  reason — when  a  British  ship  goes  from  hence  to  Amer- 
ica, goes  from  hence,  say,  to  New  York,  to  Boston,  or  to  New- 
Orleans,  and  then  has  got  to  make  its  next  step,  it  has  not  got 
a  free  choice  of  the  ports  of  the  world.  It  cannot  sail  i^ound 
upon  what  the  Americans  call  the  coasting  trade,  round  Cape 
Horn  to  San  Francisco.  The  British  ship  cannot,  but  the 
American  ship  may,  consequently  the  British  ship  carrying 
cargo  to  America  has  a  smaller  choice,  and,  therefore,  a 
restricted  advantage.  I  only  say  that  to  show  vou  that  there 
is  an  inequality  of  law  in  the  competition  which  is  entirely 
against  the  British  ships,  and  in  favor  of  American  ships. 
Gentlemen,  my  boyhood  was  spent  at  the  mouth  of  the  Mer- 
sey, and  in  those  da\  s  I  used  to  see  those  beautiful  American 
liners,  the  packets  between  New  York  and  Liverpool,  which 
then  conducted  the  bulk  and  the  pick  of  the  trade  between  the 
two  countries.  The  Americans  were  deemed  to  be  so  entirely 
superior  to  us  in  shipbuilding  and  navigation  that  they  had 
four-fifths  of  the  whole  trade  between  the  two  countries  in 
their  hands,  and  that  four-fifths  was  the  best  of  the  trade  ;  and 
but  the  dregs  were  left  in  comparison  to  the  one-fifth,  the  Brit- 
ish shipping  that  entered  int )  it.  What  is  the  case  now  when 
Free  Trade  has  operated,  and  has  applied  its  stimulus  to  the 
intelligence  of  England,  and  when  on  tlie  other  hand  the  action 
of  the  Americans  has  been  restrained  by  the  enactment,  the 
enhancement,  and  the  tightening  of  the  protective  system? 
The  case  is  now  that  the  scales  are  exactly  reversed,  and 
instead  of  America  doing  four-fifths,  and  that  the  best,  we  do 
four-fifths  of  the  business,  and  that  the  best,  and  the  Ameri- 
cans  pick   u|).  if  I    may    so    say,  the    leavings   of  the    British 


and  transact  the  residue  of  the  ti'ade.  Not  hecausc  they  are 
inferior  to  us  in  anything ;  it  would  be  a  fatal  error  to  suppose 
it ;  not  because  they  have  less  intelligence,  or  because  they 
have  less  perseverance.  They  are  your  descendants  ;  they  are 
vour  kinsmen  ;  and  they  are  fully  equal  to  you  in  all  that  goes 
to  niaUe  human  energv  and  power,  but  they  are  laboring  under 
tlic  delusion  from  which  you  yourselves  have  but  recently 
escaped,  and  in  which  some  misguided  fellow-citizens  seek 
again  to  entangle  you.  In  1S50 — I  think  I  am  right  in  saying 
that  in  1S50  the  relative  percentages  of  America  and  England 
in  the  sea  trade  of  the  world  were  represented  by  15  for  Amer- 
ica and  41  for  England.  In  the  sea  trade  of  the  world,  in 
iSSo,  the  41  of  England  had  grown  to  49,  and  the  15  of  Amer- 
ica had  dwindled  down  to  6.  There,  gentlemen,  are  the  gen- 
uine etlects  of  a  protective  svstem  exhibited  l^efore  you,  miti- 
gated in  the  case  of  America  by  its  own  internal  energies,  and 
the  enormous  field  that  is  open  to  them — a  field  which  in  your 
case  you  would  not  find,  were  you  unhappily  disposed  to  fol- 
low America  in  her  errors.  And  the  last  word  I  will  say  to 
vou  is  this,  in  the  way  of  statistical  statement :  of  the  whole 
sea  trade  of  the  world,  the  35,000,000  inhabiting  these  islands 
possess  52  percent.,  more  than  one-half  of  the  entire  sea  trade 
carried  on  by  the  entire  human  race,  civilized  or  uncivilized. 
And  vet  so  unthankful  are  we  for  the  blessings  we  enjov,  and 
so  unmiiulful  of  the  dangers  we  have  escaped,  and  the  tlam- 
ages  we  have  long  sulTered,  that  there  are  still  many  who  go  to 
British  constituencies  to  invite  them  deliberately  to  march  bick 
from  light  into  darkness,  people  who  vainly  and  idlv  persuade 
themselves  that  if  they  are  only  sufficiently  diligent  and  perse- 
vering they  will  convert  their  country  to  those  pernicious 
notions. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  now  fully  satisfied  what  I  think  my  duty 
on  this  matter  in  addressing  to  you  a  discourse  that  I  admit,  so 
far  as  you  are  concerned,  is  frivolous.  It  has  been  uninterest- 
ing to  you.  Vou  knew  it  all  before.  I  could  tell  vou  nothing 
you  did  not  know.  ]Jut  some  are  not  in  the  same  happy  con- 
dition. I  hope  that  I  have  kept  faithfully  to  the  promise  that  I 
made  tiiat  I  should  endeavor  not  to  give  a  tinge  of  partv  to  the 


54 

discussion  on  which  I  have  entered  to-day,  which  yesterday  I 
felt  myself  compelled  to  do.  I  hope  I  have  faithfull}'  observed 
that  pledge  ;  and  I  shall  conclude  by  expressing  my  belief  that 
every  man  in  this  room  sees  the  force  of  these  facts  and  figures, 
however  curtly  and  imperfectly  stated,  and  my  firm  conviction 
that  the  people  of  this  nation  have  now  come  to  understand 
and  to  value  the  system  of  commercial  freedom,  and  that  thev 
will  niaintain  those  beneficent  and  philanthropic  and  most 
fruitful  laws  as  among  the  solid  and  permanent  institutions  of 
the  country,  fraught  with  blessings  to  every  order  of  this  com- 
munitv  and  to  all  the  nations  of  the  world. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


*U^ 


AA    001  120  497    1 


